While I agree, it's also way too late to start brandishing the Constitution about. A cynical observation: neither Democrats or Republicans give one fig for the Constitution, until The Other is in power.

Case(s) in point: the FCC, FDA, minimum wage laws, Federal involvement in education.

None of those is Constitutional without some laughable legal gymnastics around inter-State commerce, and yet very few people have been complaining about their existence over the years.

As a non-American observer, the whole system seems reminiscent of ancient Rome at the point where it had become an Empire but was still pretending it was a Republic.

While I completely agree that the constitution has been trampled on for a long time, I think there's still an important difference between those who pay lip service and those who brazenly defy it. Past administrations have at least felt the need to justify themselves, even if their justifications stretch logic to the point of absurdity. When the argument is instead "we don't need to justify our actions" I think that represents a stark and dangerous shift away from the rule of law.

Personally I think a feigned respect for the rule of law is actually more dangerous, as it allows people to rationalise their support of politicians and parties with little actual respect for same.

You may be right. Hopefully the silver lining of all this mess will be an awakened populace that holds even the less obviously tyrannical to account.

Or even the enablers of tyranny.

Take Obamacare as an example. Leaving aside the issue of whether socialised healthcare is a good idea, Obama had to circumvent the law by instructing the IRS to collect revenues via an executive order.

Is that really a precedent that should have been set? Even socialists should have been a little uneasy at the disregard for the Constitution there, but instead, the ends won out over the means, and it went ahead.