The Constitution was written by rich, white, male, property owners. When they are referring to "We the people", you have to take into consideration
who exactly "we" and "the people" were. At face value, women and blacks were certainly not considered "people" at the time. "We the people" is in fact
only referring to a select few.
Everything was designed to protect the minority, from the 'tyranny' of the majority. What people do not understand is that the minority in this case
are the rich property owners, who are to be protected from the majority - ie., everyone else.
The founding fathers were genious enough to realize that instead of monopolizing people in a direct absolutist fashion, you could appease them by
throwing them a few crumbs once in a while. This is why we have a representative two party system that differs only by small details.
Once every four years the "minority" offers the "majority" a "choice" between two sides of the same face. The people think that they have a "vote"
and, subsequently, participation in the political process, when in reality that vote is highly controlled and limited to serve only those who allow
the voting in the first place. Kind of like being offered a "choice" between being shot in the head or run over by my truck.
Presidents may change, but major policies almost always remain the same. Same play, different actor.
And the masses remain subdued because they actually think their voice counts. It counts in little things, but never in any major decision, policy,
application of law, or distribution of government funds that involves that top .1% (ie the minority).
Yes, you have certain liberties and rights afforded to you by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but they are only there as an appeasement to
subjugate the masses. As you mentioned with the example of the Patriot Act, they are subject to 'interpretation' by a legislative body that is given
the latitude to do so. While legislation 'appears' to apply equally to everyone (I mean, what could be more fair than writing all the rules down on
paper, and impersonally subjecting everyone to the same regulations?), it most certainly does not.
The problem comes with the fact that it was created with such sophistication so as to allow those "interpretations" to be utilized by those with the
means to do so.
edit on 9-5-2014 by pissy because: (no reason given)