Don't know if you can stomach a Heritage Foundation essay, but there's lots of good historical stuff here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/securing-li...

The important point is that the founders felt such boundaries were mere "parchment barriers", not that such boundaries were unnecessary! just the opposite. The BOR was created because the states would not go along with ratifying the constitution based solely on structural descriptions. Clear and deliberate promises would have to be made, and even then all the parties concerned were dubious such promises would hold out over the test of time.

I agree with that assessment. I think systems of people drift from well-executing to poorly executing. Good systems of people have self-correction mechanisms built in. Our system of government has one such system. Over time, however, the self-correction mechanism itself becomes broken.

I do not necessarily feel that it is irreparable or a revolution is required (as opposed to many of the founders, who privately felt that another revolution was all but certain). I'm simply pointing out that you can't keep beating the same mule and expecting it to continue plowing the field. I think that's the difference here. If I understand you correctly, the problem is one of perception -- if only we could get those citizens happy again! Whereas in my mind the problem is structural -- over time, with the government in basically a state of war with its own population, "keeping them happy" is not in the cards.

I'm not sure what a "fix" would be, but I'm not opposed to any action taken on the issue. Couldn't hurt. The spying issue isn't an issue because I'm upset about it -- the problem here isn't that people are just going bonkers when they realize what's going on (as Senator Wyden describes). The problem is that the democratic system of government itself cannot function over a long period of time with the state knowing so much about the people. It just doesn't work. That's a theory of government problem, not a constitutional or realpolitik one. If you understand that, then you realize that this is the type of problem that exists outside of the structures created to contain it - hence the response that "it's all legal". Of course it's legal. We don't have tyrants out to purposefully destroy our system of government. Instead we have patriotic, brilliant, and hard-working people out to protect us. And these people will continue to game the system in any way possible to make sure we're protected. That's how we got here.

I think if you don't understand how we got here, and you don't understand the nature of the problem, it becomes very difficult to understand what could be done to "fix" it. You might start thinking that you could vote in some handsome slick-talking schmucks who can wave a magic wand around and put the genie back in the bottle. That might be a great recipe for kicking the can down the road, but not so much for actually self-correcting. From where I sit, a few more constitutional amendments are going to be necessary. Good luck taking bets on when that's going to happen.

EDIT: I'll also add that the anti-federalists, you know, those tin-foil-hat-wearing hand-waving guys, turned out to be exactly correct in many of the arguments they made against a federal government. A standing army, use of the executive to control the military and interfere in state's matters, and so on. At the time they were shouted down as being paranoid. Sounds very familiar, doesn't it?

But I honestly do wish you the best of luck in your "vote some good guys in office" plan. Anything that will keep the country on a stable path for another century or two is a good thing in my book.