{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0267639902676399, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036496350364963502, 'mean_word_length': 5.858333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How Constitutional Rights Matter: Thoughts on the New Gold Standard in Empirical Constitutional Studies

In this University of Chicago Law Review Online extended review essay of Adam Chilton Chilton and Mila Versteeg's How Constitutional Rights Matter, we highlight a number of the strengths of the work in terms of both theory and methods. We also raise some questions concerning three issues: (1) the book's core argument—the advantage of organizational rights over individual rights—and it's applicability to property rights, due process rights and indigenous peoples' rights; (2) the possible tradeoff between substantive insights and comprehensive, multi-method comparative research; and (3) the possibility that organized interests determine or affect which rights enjoy constitutional protection in the first place.