Like all self-evident and perfectly obvious good advice, that statement can be taken to ridiculous extremes. But so can even the most reasonable and well-considered objections to it.

Government must be based on compromise, and compromise depends on human negotiation and even conflict, short of violence--politics. Even violence has its place; the British Crown, the French Aristocracy, the Southern slaveholders, and Adolph Hitler did not give up their "god-given rights" easily. Still, wise men prefer committees to combat, beware those who are always pontificating about the blood of patriots and the tree of liberty; they are usually too old to fight and they've often already picked all the fruit from the lowest branches.

The Law, the Constitution, the Government, is a human artifact. It is a machine devised to perform a vital but not specifically defined function: promoting the public welfare. Like all machines, it must follow natural law, but those laws are not universally agreed upon, so to a certain degree we must rely on empirical results, or how we interpret them, for even wise and honest men do not always arrive at the same conclusions when presented with the same results.

Like all machines, once a design is agreed upon, we are locked into whatever advantages and disadvantages that architecture has, but we are also free to evaluate its performance and modify its configuration as conditions change, and they will change. The best designs are those which are easily modifiable. This process is not without problems, and carries no guarantee of success, but the alternative is either chaos or tyranny.

You can get good advice from the founding fathers, the Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen or even the Bible, but working Law must come from people sitting around a table arguing and it will always be a compromise that fully satisfies no one. Beware of the "Principled Solution", the "Obvious Human Right", or any so-called scientific "ism". They are all frauds calculated to disguise personal self-interest as profound intellectual philosophy--or worse, as "science".