[supercat]

I would suggest that more people need to be aware of a few simple truths, which aren't really taught in schools but can be derived by simple logic. Among them:

1. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any government act contrary to the Constitution is illegitimate. If an act is unconstitutional, neither the Supreme Court nor any other agency has any authority to declare it otherwise, unless the Constitution is amended via Article V to allow for such action. Any such declaration made without authority is illegitimate and void.
2. Any government action which could not be justified without court precedent is unjustifiable and illegitimate.
3. Juries have a right and duty to regard the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, any judicial declarations notwithstanding. No judge has any legitimate authority to demand they do otherwise.
4. The Supreme Court has no authority over anyone other than the parties to the cases before it. The claim that "precedent" is some sort of uber-law is entirely without legitimate Constitutional basis.
5. The right to a jury trial implies a right of a defendant to demand that a jury make any and all applicable factual determinations. If a judge makes some factual determinations himself, but does so contrary to what a jury would have decided, and if he withholds information from the jury on the basis of such determinations, the verdict attributed to the jury may really be the work of the judge.
6. The reasonableness of searches will often be dependent upon factual issues unique to the cases for which they are used. While it is common for courts to declare that behavior which was "reasonable" in one case is automatically "reasonable" in another, there is no legitimate basis for such declarations. Since unreasonable searches are illegitimate, juries should not construe any evidence from such searches in a manner detrimental to a defendant.
7. The reasonableness of punishments (i.e. fines' being "not excessive", or other punishments' not being "cruel and unusual") is often dependent upon details of of the applicable cases (including, but not limited to, a defendant's state of mind). A punishment which would be if anything too lenient if a particular witness telling the truth, might be grossly excessive if the witness is lying. If a jury's authority to rate the credibility of witnesses is to be upheld, juries must be allowed to limit sentences. Judges routinely block juries from even knowing what sentences would apply to the crimes their judging; I would expect they do that because they know that juries would regard the sentences as excessive and thus illegitimate.
8. A person who performs an action with an objectively reasonable belief the either the action is either de jure or else it is both legal de facto and harmless to others, generally does not have criminal intent; to punish such a person severely would generally be excessive.
9. All free people have a right to keep and bear arms. To disarm someone is to deny that person's liberty. The only people who may be legitimately disarmed are those who may be legitimately regarded as "not free".
10. While there might be some debate regarding the legitimacy of statutes or laws which would, as a side-effect, interfere with people's ability to arm themselves (e.g. requirements that firearms marked for certain calibers be able to withstand certain chamber pressures), any statute whose clear purpose or effect is to make it difficult for some free people to arm themselves effectively is an infringement of such people's right to keep and bear arms, and is thus illegitimate.
11. A government agent who does something without legitimate authority is no less of a crook than would be someone not affiliated with government who does the same thing.
12. A government agent who covers up the crimes of another government agent becomes complicit in the lesser of (1) what he believes those crimes to be, or (2) what they actually are.
13. Denouncing an illegitimate government is not anarchistic. To the contrary, those who oppose anarchy must oppose the anarchists in an illegitimate government.

The Constitution is actually pretty simple. What's hard is trying to twist the Constitution so as to maintain the pretense that the government's behavior is legitimate. Drop the pretense, and the boundaries of legitimate government become much clearer.

[Noumenon]

Excellent summary. Should be required reading for a pass-fail citizenship course. If you don’t pass, then no vote, no benefits of citizenship.