The question of constitutionality is that Supreme Court justices, who are appointed and not elected by the people, decide the constitutionality of laws and the legislation is questionable. When the Marshall Court decided Marbury v. Madison, claiming the right to judicial review, everything changed, for better or worse. Dworkin's writings attempt to reiterate what a democracy is and its purpose of serving the people. His statements are almost contradictory in that he affirms that we must avoid a moral reading of the Constitution, because it gives too much power to judges. But he also claims that the original readings will date the constitution and make it less relevant. All this amounts to calling for an institution that protects the rights of the people and limits the majoritarian aspects of democracy, therefore in essence, creating a functioning constitutional democracy. I think the answer Dworkin is looking for is the judiciary. Waldron feels the same way, also noting the differences in Dworkin's essay. Dworkin says that "the legislature is not the surest means of protecting the rights of unpopular political groups," and that's where I can see some of the point he's trying to make, because the legislature is not the surest way to protect minorities.