I think dignity is a meaningful constitutional principle when it is used in a consistent way to protect individual autonomy and identity defining choices, but without clear standards it can be considered judicial camouflage - working as an abstract label to mask rulings considered subjective. This just leaves me wondering how dignity can mean one thing in one case and the complete opposite in another.
Dignity can feel vague if it isn’t tied to clear rules. One way to fix that is to use dignity as a way to explain WHY rights like liberty and equality matter, not as its own separate right. This keeps dignity important but stops it from becoming just a label judges can use to reach any result. It adds meaning without replacing clear legal standards.
I think dignity is a meaningful constitutional principle when it is used in a consistent way to protect individual autonomy and identity defining choices, but without clear standards it can be considered judicial camouflage - working as an abstract label to mask rulings considered subjective. This just leaves me wondering how dignity can mean one thing in one case and the complete opposite in another.
Dignity can feel vague if it isn’t tied to clear rules. One way to fix that is to use dignity as a way to explain WHY rights like liberty and equality matter, not as its own separate right. This keeps dignity important but stops it from becoming just a label judges can use to reach any result. It adds meaning without replacing clear legal standards.