The de jure perspective is still worthwhile to consider because although there are definitely frequently overreaches of power, you still have a reasonable chance of challenging such overreaches in our court system.

Do you have a reasonable chance? It seems that unless you are already wealthy, or get a powerful entity to back you up like the EFF or Peter Thiel, that you have very little chance of even having your day in court.

This is why we have nonprofits like eff. Individual cases are one thing, but collective cases make it more powerful for defending rights.

I understand that's why these non profits have spring up, but I don't think their existence means you have a reasonable chance in our legal system. They simply don't have the resources to help everyone

I know, it's a tough question. Ordinary citizens are unlikely to sue government individually. And i am aware EFF doesn't have infinite resources. I prefer them fighting at higher level than individual cases. Cases like encryption being unlawful etc are more important for democracy/freedom than my inconvenience at the border for example.

All of that is reasonable but I was replying to the poster who stated that people still have a reasonable chance in our system. I don't believe that is true any longer, if it ever was

de jure perspective: should, shouldn't

de facto perspective: can, can't

The government shouldn't do what they are doing. But they can, and they do.

But the government grants itself its power from a de jure perspective as well. How did the government come into power in the first place? By consent of the governed, right? Remember public high school civics class? But wait, who decided what “consent of the governed” means, and exactly what level of consent was required to claim legitimacy? Yep, that was the government itself.

Well the State governments at the time ratified the Constitution, so the Federal Government didn't grant itself power; the State governments did.

State governments can still take power away by convening a Convention to Amend the Constitution and then ratifying a Constitutional Amendment.