She's referring to the philosophical - social and legal - concept of equality, not (inherited) biological - intellectual or physical - or even monetary attributes. Come on, people, isn't this obvious (see my comment to S'bu below)? And DM readers are supposed to be above-average.  Or are you suggesting a constitution based not on equality but some different normative scale?  If so, for example, people with high IQ, fame and wealth - include your own criteria - would be assessed legally, constitutionally different from those who are not, or vice versa (of course they are but that's not constitutionally based but an artificial social pecking order).  All legal systems I've heard of (except Zimbabwe and SA perhaps where the governing parties and families get off scot-free - that's a joke) state 'equal before the law'. That's what equality means, from which the social democratic principle of equal opportunities is derived. The latter is often hard to attain, but it's important we try.