The frequently expressed view that written constitutions are inherently more liberal than unwritten ones is false. No written constitution is more than a paper with words on it until those words are both interpreted and applied. Properly understood, then, a constitution is the sum of those procedures through which the power of the state is legitimately exercised and limited. Ttherefore, even a written constitution becomes a liberal constitution only when it is interpreted and applied in a liberal way. The main point of the argument above is that ['the idea of a written constitution, properly understood, is inherently self-contradictory', 'there are criteria for evaluating the interpretation and application of a constitution', 'written constitutions are no more inherently liberal than are unwritten constitutions', 'liberal constitutions are extremely difficult to preserve']