Your comment below doesn't demonstrate that constitutions being considered statements of natural law is normative at all. Constitutions far outdate the very concept of natural law, and your comment doesn't contain any evidence that this has become the norm in modern times.

I dunno if I accept that the Canadian constitution does or not, it doesn't matter, one other country would not tip the balance.

> Constitutions far outdated the very concept of natural law

Really? I would trace the concept of natural law at least back to Aquinas (13th century) if not antiquity. Constitutional law as part of a secular democracy, on the other hand, I wouldn't trace back much further than the U.S. Constitution, or at most its 17th century predecessors. Magna Carta wasn't really a constitution.

Considering the ancient Greeks basically made a hobby of discussing what the ideal constitution is, I would say the concept is far older than even the first twinkling of the concept of natural law.

(My comment below this one was meant to be directed as to the existence of speech laws, not the US constitution's position on 'natural laws')

It's basically wrong to suggest that somehow the US's constitutional assertion indicating certain rights are 'natural' is somehow problematic - or even unique.

The 'existential and inalienable rights of human beings' have been recognized not only in constitutional and legal forms throughout the world, but in various other texts and declarations.

As I mentioned, the Canadian constitution refers directly to divine providence. (Which is another way of saying 'natural rights')

The 'Basic Law' in Germany starts with this text:

"Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law."

This is definitely an existential assertion.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts like this:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"

So they refer to inherent dignity which is essentially another way of saying 'natural right'.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation:

"We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, united by a common fate on our land, establishing human rights and freedoms, civic peace and accord, preserving the historically established state unity, proceeding from the universally recognized principles of equality and self-determination of peoples"

Once again universally recognized principles yada yada ...

Poland:

"We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic, Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty, As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources, Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good - Poland,"

Greek constitution starts like this:

"THE CONSTITUTION OF GREECE In the name of the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity"

(Admittedly, it doesn't quite specify those things as sources of rights or provenance)

Not surprisingly, most Arab state Constitutions defer to 'God' as the source of their ultimate authority, but again maybe unsurprisingly, don't dwell a lot on 'rights'. But from the 2012 Syrian constitution: "Freedom shall be a sacred right" - again alluding to the transcendental nature of certain rights.

Shall I go on?

Note that Australia (the nation in question here), and a whole host of other nations which do not specifically hint at the existential nature of human rights in their own texts, are in fact signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which legally enshrined the quote above. So that's going to add Sweden, UK, Norway etc. etc. as well to a very formal declaration of the 'natural rights' of people.

So finally - the US's assertion of 'natural rights' is a) not an odd, special or contentious thing b) common enough in the world, constitutionally and legally that we can't really say that this nature of their Constitution is very unique.

You're the one who directed me to that comment, so don't throw your hands up and act like you considered it irrelevant to our conversation.

We actually disagree less than you think though.

I'm not making a value judgement about whether constitutions which treat themselves as a statement of natural rights are a bad thing. I actually think it is probably a good thing.

That doesn't make it normative though. It's very uncommon, whether we wish it were more common or not.

As to the evidences you put forward, thank you for putting in the effort. I would say though that you view these things through the lenses of assuming natural rights are really intuitive and a universal value. Anything that these constitutions you listed out say which smells even remotely like a way of saying natural rights you assume that's what it essentially means. But only someone who assume natural rights are a basic human value would consider most of those to be even approaching the idea.

I'll give some examples:

Your Canadian example: Could also be interpreted to mean that the constitution does not supersede divine law, that is, where the rights enumerated conflict with church doctrine, church doctrine is supreme.

I'm not even saying this is my interpretation, I'm just saying it's a plausible interpretation once one stops assuming that natural law in the sense in which it applies to the US constitution is a universal value.

Your Germanic example: It just makes reference adopting the law of the constitutions. This is probably the biggest stretch of them all. There's absolutely no acknowledgement of even the concept of a right or a natural law, in the passage you cited.

One doesn't even need to get rid of the assumption that a concept of natural law is universally shared to fail to see it in that passage.

The UN declaration of Human Rights: Not a constitution, but the closest to a declaration of natural law. However "universally recognised principles" does not equal "natural law". Not even really that close tbh. However it does make mention of "inalienable rights" which is actually the stronger phrase for this being a recognition of natural law.

However again. Not a constitution.

Polish example: Makes reference to a common good and universal values. Not inalienable natural rights, especially once one considers that it balances rights with responsibilities. Natural rights aren't really balanced by responsibility, they just are. But it's not a huge stretch.

Greece: Sometimes it seems like you think any reference to God is a recognition of natural law and rights. It isn't. Hell, even references to rights aren't a recognition of natural law, certainly not in the American sense. The Divine Right of Kings had plenty to do with religion and the concept of rights, but little in common with the natural law, inalienable, universal human rights we're talking about here.

As to your Australia example and its callback to the UN example: Never make the mistake of thinking that rights always refer to natural law and universal, inalienable values. The concept of rights goes back far further, and encompassed things we would consider absolute violations of our modern conception of rights. One can take a purely legalistic view of "right, privileges and responsibilities" which does not rely on anything but the letter of the law. And again, this is not a constitution. Australia HAS a constitution, and its clear why you didn't use IT as an example.

So finally - the US's assertion of 'natural rights' a) certainly odd in how explicit it is, and I would say qualitatively different from most b) uncommon, if in nothing else, how explicitly stated it is, but again, I would say qualitatively different from much of the world.

Again, I would say your blind spot is in assuming that natural law and natural rights are something intuitive and universal, so that any time you hear something even slightly approaching it in language, you assume that's what's being referred to, but that's just not the case in my opinion. I think your perception is coloured by your assumption from the get-go.