I agree but too few people even know what "rights" they have. I suspect that only a minute number of our population even own a copy of the constitution or, if so, have even read it from beginning to Amendment XXVII (which was proposed by Congress on Sept. 25, 1789 and and finally ratified by New Jersey on May 7, 1992 - ha!) It is certain that Dick Cheney and George Bush never did. Of more concern are cases when one's rights are clear and are violated by law enforcement (e.g., suffering warrantless searches and seizures for no reason other than harassment by the local police). Perhaps the cops do it just because they don't like blacks, jews or homosexuals living in their towns. Redress? File a complaint with the police department. You will get the inevitable letter that the cops were justified. The District Attorney doesn't care and the FBI will tell you they don't have jurisdiction, although they do under the Civil Rights Act. A lawyer wouldn't take your case for at least $20K up front and an hourly rate to boot because the possibility of recovery is slight to nill. The cops will make up a report swearing that you saw them outside and then ran inside your house. They followed, suspecting criminal activity, you opened the door which they interpreted as your consent to let them in and, once in, smelled what they thought was Marijuana. Thus, the search ensued although they didn't find any. Besides, you weren't hurt and they didn't damage anything. The Civil Rights Act allows for an action even though there has been no physical damage, but no court or jury would make an award without it. The victim knows that what the police did was wrong, but likely not why. What constitutional right was violated, if any? The primary problem is EDUCATION. What subjects are emphasized in school these days? Math and science and science and math. When funds are short the first victims are our kids as education funding decreases. There are no curricula for history classes that would teach kids what it was like to be victimized by arrogant British soldiers who decided to take over their homes, eat their food, trash their homes and not pay for it. Why did the framers think that the need for militas and guns were worthy of constitutional protections? What's the link between our revolution and the French Revolution? No one knows because we no longer teach it. People learn to write by reading. We no longer require students to reade on their own time and write essay after essay for four, five or six years to learn how to write. I've read the same GAO reports that you did including the one specifying the periodic reports to congress that were not supplied at the direction of the president. Why didn't anyone require Bush to put the wars in the budget? All those "supplemental" appropriations carried with them unrelated amendments giving the executive more and more power. Why didn't the Democrats object? It's because they were afraid of "not supporting our troops". It takes a long time to think through current issues such as health care so the majority just mindlessly adopt the slogans of special interests such as "do you want the government in between you and your doctor"? Where's logic? Insurance companies now stand between our us and our doctors and, worse yet, they are now reducing the selection of doctors we can choose; doctors who work cheap, went to medical schools in third world countries and are culturally ignorant of American culture. In my group plan, my PPO has converted to an EPO (exclusive provider org.) and neither my doctor or any other I trust will work as cheap as the insurance company wants. And, I can no longer get ANY reimbursement if I "go out of network". Prior approval is now required for all medications. And my monthly premium for my group policy went up 68%. It doesn't take an educated genius to compare what is happening to that chart I saw months ago showing that the increasing cost of medical care will bankrupt this country in the not to distant future. Months ago every member of the Party of No flatly stated that we need health care reform. But they have never specified what real reforms they would accept. Sen. McConnell spoke for his party when he stated that his party would vote no on the health care bill REGARDLESS of what provisions were in it. When it is said that a piece of legislation on a common serious matter can never get through congress due to the influence of "special interest groups", such as any health bill, it is an announcement that private moneyed interests have purchased enough congressmen to prevent it. The people in DC talk about special interest groups as a legitimate third body of congress and accept that without any qualms. Physical and moral prostitution have been accepted businesses in DC for years. The McConnells and Boehners of this world don't care about the future, just what they cdan grab for themselves now or after they leave office. (I wonder how much money the Kuwaitis paid George GW Bush for saving their country when he attended a party in his honor immediately after leaving office.) And today our Supreme Court announced it legal for moneyed interests to pay off legislators without legality or limit. We the prople cannot limit the avarice of corporate interest without asking their permission first. (BTW it was President Taft who used the Sherman Act of 1890 to break up the Standard Oil Trust in 1911. Selling off those companies netted Rockefeller enough to make him the richest man in the US - if not world - with an estimated net worth of $318 billion and change before the days of income taxes. Andrew Carnegy was number two by about $100 million in pin money.) In summation, it is physically and mentally impossible for the vast majority of voters to keep themselves informed about what's happening, or will happen, to them as the result of governmental actions. There's too much going on and it's all too complex. Who knows that George Bush spent eight years rewriting the Social Security Regulations to make it almost impossible to be declared disabled based on a mental condition. And now any disabled person's case may be reconsidered if they make ANY money on their own. The regs mislead disabled persons by stating that they can make up to $950/mo and still be considered disabled, but only in another part of the labrynthian regulations does it state that doing so will subject the disabled person subject to medical review -- using the current criteria rather than the standards used when the person was declared disabled. How are people supposed to know that little trick without specifically researching it. Conclusion: Franklin is right. We are now economic slaves to the wealthy 2% of our population who control 95% of the wealth. And our legislators are either among the top 2% or are working hard to get there.