September 17th is Constitution Day in the USA. On this date in 1787, the Articles of Confederation which had been drafted following the Declaration of Independence were replaced by a new Constitution instead of being merely revised as the convention had been charged to do. Many interpretations of this event range from, "it was necessary to replace a flawed system," to, "it was a bloodless coup staged by people who wanted a new political class with themselves at its head." I am personally inclined to lean more toward the latter than the former.
Howard Chandler Christy, Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, public domain.
You may have heard of the Federalist Papers written anonymously to support this document and its ratification. You may not have heard of the Anti-Federalist Papers warning of the likely consequences and abuses of power this new centralized system would bring. Spoiler alert: the Federalists promised a lot, but the Anti-Federalists were better prophets.
I am of the opinion that the Bill of Rights is the only good part of the Constitution, the main body of which is a convoluted codification of trespass against the people. The Federalists insisted those amendments were unnecessary, but reality has shown it was worse: they are often ineffectual in restraining federal ambitions despite clear language prohibiting specific government actions.
The government has routinely violated freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, and on down the line, even arguably breaking the third amendment prohibition on the quartering of troops. While there have been favorable decisions in some cases when these violations are challenged, this is not always the case.
On this occasion, I can only echo the sentiments of Lysander Spooner from his conclusion to NO TREASON No. VI. The Constitution of No Authority.
Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Indeed. I bet that in most countries, 90% of the laws that are written and debated about buy a Government's leaders and opposition are unknown by 90% of the population of that country.