A non-discriminatory democracy has no laws or other state-sanctioned practices which disadvangate individuals on the basis of race or bodily chracteristics. Additionally it has no laws or other state-sanctioned practices which limit the cultural or ideological beliefs of individuals. It does, however, use its powers to protect all citizens from harassment to enforce the requirements of any religion on those who choose not to follow them.

At Cronulla beach a few years ago, the state neglected to protect beachgoers from harassment when their beach attire offended the theocratic requirements of Moslems. Decent Australians were obliged to use their fists and boots to provide the resistance that the state withheld because of its politicians' undemocratic commitment to multiculturalism. For this these decent Australians were reviled by the Dhimmified news media.

Dear David,

If you design a good constitution which takes into account the needs, wishes and freedoms of real people, then 99% of the people will accept it. After some further negotiations and refinements, this good constitution will turn into an excellent constitution and by then 99.9% will accept it.

The remaining 0.1% will just create holes in the state's territory - and that's fine. If they are not on a border and ever want to move in and out, then they will need to negotiate rights of passage. In all probability this should not prove difficult, otherwise, they may rather sell their properties and move to a neighbouring state which suits their values better.

The very presence of options nearby, will create competition, where states always try to create the best possible constitutions, respect freedoms more and improve their laws to attract good citizens.

Dear Yutsutsu,

A Constitution by itself means nothing. The Soviet Union had and the Republic of China has wonderful constitutions.

At the moment the Constitution of the United States is under threat from its president.

The Federalist Papers are the background to the US Constitution. According to them Trump's actions in putting the armed forces of the US into action were illegal. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution did not want the president to have the powers of a king. Unlike an absolute monarch the president can only command the armed forces in the prosecution of a military action if the armed forces have been called out previously. The only circumstances which call out the armed forces are a Declaration of War which article 2 section 8 of the Constitution delegates to Congress, an attack on the US, a domestic insurrection or the fulfilment of a treaty obligation. The various war powers acts by which Congress has empowered the president to decide on war are illegal. Congress cannot delegate that power any more than the Supreme Court can delegate the president or Congress to decide cases. Federalist Paper # 74 written by Alexander Hamilton states: "The President of the United States is to be "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militias of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States.” "when called into the actual service" is italicized. Trump should be impeached for malfeasance since he used his power improperly, but the reality is that he won't be impeached.

Constitutions are fine only if there are working mechanisms to support them.

Dear David,

We can only do our best.

So try to have the mechanisms to support your constitution, to whatever extent you can.
It might not be perfect, but at least you did no harm and did not force yourself and your laws on anyone - that's the minimum, that's decency, the rest is a bonus.

Dear Yuyutsu,

We both want decency. Let's leave it there.