First, thanks for such a thoughtful and provocative article.

As a "U.S. American," as someone once put it, I will refer to our Constitution. As I see it, it does three things: it lays out the structure and sanctioned functioning of the central government; it guarantees certain rights of the citizens as individuals; and it gives form to the philosophical principles that underlie it.

Personally, I think a constitution should be limited to the first of those purposes. For the rest, what is needed is the recognition of the ethic of justice to govern the political process (which is nothing but the process of effecting choices for the community as a whole).

What is that ethic? It is mutual respect (in its most basic form: taking one another into account as we live our separate lives together in this world).

That ethic already underlies the democratic political process: all citizens are allowed to participate in that process through freedom of political speech, so all are taken into account in it. Other forms of participation in the process (petitioning the government, peaceable assembly, running for office, and voting) are (now), if restricted at all, restricted only by age, which is a just restriction because it is universally applicable--as long as it is universally applied.

Any outcome of a just--democratic--political process is legitimate as long as a given choice does not compromise the democratic nature of the process and all people acted justly (enough) in the process of effecting a given choice (ideally, no killing, harming, coercing, stealing, or manipulating--which includes lying, cheating, etc.). No other restrictions on outcomes, such as conforming to rights 'guaranteed' in a constitution, are necessary.