Some 230 years later, we needn’t fear troops quartered in our homes but the threat is the same when a President betrays his trust and oath of office.
I agree that there can be a difference between a 'good' and a 'bad' President; however, would suggest that what actually limits Government and protects individuals' God-given rights is not the ethics and or morals of any one or group of elected or unelected government officials. What limits government is limited powers, checks and balances, and the rule of law.
In my opinion, regarding what is being exposed now, Obama circumvented limited powers, checks and balances, and the rule of law BECAUSE limited powers, checks and balances, and the rule of law have been slowly eroded over time by the deep state.
For example, The National Security Agency (NSA) is a national-level intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defense. I would suggest that the NSA would never have been originally chartered if its mission was to spy on and collect information about U.S. citizens. In essence, via the NSA, the Military is being used against Americans -let that sink in... Let me add that Congress is letting this happen and the Judiciary as yet has done nothing to 'check' the rogue violation of individuals' God-given rights this unwarranted data collection represents...
Some clauses of the Constitution are observed, while most are not. Those in force are those that established the three branches, elections, Washington DC as the seat of government, presidential vetoes, etc. I regard these as ‘hard’ clauses, those that are observed and unabused.
On the other hand, most clauses in our Constitution are ‘soft’ in nature, and comprise what James Madison referred to as mere parchment barriers. For instance, soft clauses are among the myriad that deal with regulation of commerce, taxation, free speech rights and the placement of all legislative powers in congress. These, the soft clauses, are disregarded, if not inverted, to serve purposes opposite of their clear intent.
On closer inspection, we’ll find that hard Constitutional clauses typically have an institution or an interest group to defend them. Otherwise, and without defense, they are sure to fall into the soft category.
To keep the entirety of our Constitution in force necessitates institutions designed for the continued defense of hard clauses and renewed defense of soft clauses. For instance, the scotus’ infamous 1942 Wickard v. Filburn opinion regarding interstate commerce did enormous and continuing damage to state sovereignty. Despite the clear wording of the commerce clause and the Tenth Amendment, Wickard or a similar ruling was an eventual certainty since the states had not been in the senate to defend their interests since 1913. A senate of the states had previously ensured the commerce clause remained in the hard clause category. The 17th Amendment doomed many previously hard clauses into soft clause irrelevance. There are other examples.
To the extent that the Second Amendment is intact is not due to its enumeration in the Bill of Rights. The 2A remains in force due to attentive citizen groups who stand ready to render electoral hell on politicians who waver on this fundamental right.
It is only by making power a check on power that liberty may be protected from the ravages of time.