In the US the Bill of Rights is taken very seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government. That's just the way it is.
Forgive me, I just don't know what you are trying to communicate.
And the further point is that there are plenty of people working to undermine those rights, and they don't need to change those words to be successful, they can also change how they are interpreted and how seriously they are taken in order to achieve their goal of undermining those rights, and that is what they usually do.
If we are going to talk about government derailing and doing as they wish then no piece of paper can protect anyone. At that point it becomes about guns and blood. Which sort of drives the point of the second amendment. That scenario is very, very far from reality in the US for more reasons than one.
The US is one of the few (well, I don't think I know of any other) where you can tell a police officer to go to hell and stop harassing you in a public space due to the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. YouTube is FULL of videos showing these kinds of situations. Anywhere else on earth you are far more likely to end-up in jail or worse.
That happens because, at the end of the day, this society is based on a legal set of rules that everyone tends to follow, particularly the important ones. That's the difference.
I know someone is going to bring up the topic of cops doing bad things. Guess what? There are bad cops, bad engineers, bad dentists and bad ice skaters. Humans are not a uniform blob of meat with the same brain. When someone behaves badly, more often than not, they face the consequences of their behavior. This includes violating others' rights.
I know that if you are not in the US the above can be incomprehensible. And that's OK, there's nothing I can say to make you see this realty. It's like a bird trying to explain to a fish what it is like to fly. The lack of context is too extreme.
Also:
> If we are going to talk about government derailing and doing as they wish then no piece of paper can protect anyone. At that point it becomes about guns and blood.
No, it doesn't, if there is sufficient consensus for authoritarianism. I mean, except for the few people who don't agree, maybe.
> That scenario is very, very far from reality in the US for more reasons than one.
That seems very naive to me if you look at all the efforts to undermine those rights, including by the president himself.
> The US is one of the few (well, I don't think I know of any other) where you can tell a police officer to go to hell and stop harassing you in a public space due to the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.
Then ... you are badly informed?
> That happens because, at the end of the day, this society is based on a legal set of rules that everyone tends to follow, particularly the important ones. That's the difference.
So ... you are agreeing then that it's about the consensus, not about the piece of paper?
> I know someone is going to bring up the topic of cops doing bad things. Guess what? There are bad cops, bad engineers, bad dentists and bad ice skaters. Humans are not a uniform blob of meat with the same brain. When someone behaves badly, more often than not, they face the consequences of their behavior. This includes violating others' rights.
And also, more often than not, they don't. But more importantly, you are making the argument against your original claim yourself here. What matters is the consensus, not the piece of paper. What matters is whether consequences are enforced on those who violate rights, not whether some piece of paper says "recognize" or "grant". What matters is whether society at large and government in particular consider those rights important or not, not whether some piece of paper says "recognize" or "grant".
> I know that if you are not in the US the above can be incomprehensible. And that's OK, there's nothing I can say to make you see this realty. It's like a bird trying to explain to a fish what it is like to fly. The lack of context is too extreme.
Erm ... yeah, sure! I gather that it is perfectly comprehensible to you what it is like to live anywhere else, though, right?
You still don't understand the key difference and I am not sure I can explain it well enough for you to internalize it.
That piece of paper and the words on it mean a lot.
They drive a massive legal system that takes that piece of paper and the words on it very seriously.
And so, if a bad politician, from the President on down to a local city official, a law enforcement person or any inhabitant of the US for that matter, behaves in a way that violates those words, the legal system makes them pay the consequences of their actions.
This does not mean that we are 100% infalible in this regard. Nobody is. There will be bad politicians, cops and people from time to time who will get away with misbehaving. That's just reality.
However, in the US, for the most part, these laws are respected AND enforced. They mean something and, in particular, the Bill of Rights exists outside of government. They can't take away your freedom of speech or engage in unreasonable search and seizure, etc. without suffering devastating legal consequences.
The only way this would not be so is if society as we know it in the US derailed to the point of anarchy. That is very far from reality. Impossible? Nothing is. Highly improbable? Absolutely. This isn't Venezuela. Yet.