[OneWingedShark]

Exhibit A: Dred Scott
Exhibit B: Roe v. Wade

I've gotten into arguments about this. Saying that the armed forces have a duty to protect/defend the Constitution against all enemies and that the USSC, though it is _supposed_ to delineate Constitutionality, might, in fact, be a domestic enemy thereof:
Exhibit C: Keely v. New England (?) on 25Jun05

It's a sorry-arse government that backs its citizens into a corner, where they're forced to either lash out against the evil perpetrated under the protection of law or live with the never-ending tears and grief.

You are correct, and that is where the idea of the consent of the governed as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence & alluded to in the Constitution comes into play.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dv698tm_25c7b35cc9&hl=en

[LearsFool]

Are you thinking of Kelo v. New London?

That's the case that shook the very last of my confidence in the Court. I can read, after all. And the Constitution clearly outlaws such takings of private property. If the Court will not give us justice against legislated theft, we're on our own.

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."

Our national government has failed its entire purpose, thrown off its legal restraints, and thus illegitimized itself. The "balance of power" in Washington has been reduced to a mere squabbling over the spoils they've looted from their raids on my country.