There is an island that stands strait in the way, and you know that if you were to destroy it, the aftereffects would weaken you so greatly that you wouldn’t even benefit from your violent efforts. What do you do? You raise the entire sea around it, so you can sail over it without being bothered. The island is still technically there, but it is incapacitated.
Much easier than raising the ocean to negate an island is the process of inflating a currency. The value of the dollar, and its legitimacy—as will soon become visible—is diluted when too much of it is created and given away to big banks. Similarly, the political currency known as rights, sometimes distributed to the citizens of a country, as has supposedly been done in the USofA, is also vulnerable to dilution through inflation. A key that is copied and handed out to everyone makes a mere novelty of the lock.
The monetary elites, who we shouldn’t forget are the corporations, wouldn’t use the tactic of ever trying to challenge or get rid of the constitution. Instead of running roughshod over our rights, they would much rather add legitimated “friendly rivals” that need judicial consideration along with the constitution (or even within the constitution), so that the constitution’s real purpose gets drowned out, though technically it still exists as the same entity.
How did this come to pass? The idea of rights that was only intended for the narrow island of humans was INCompletely extrapolated to the corporate world when the “incorporation” norm was afforded to businesses during the 19th century. Most of the structural pieces were already set, and it was only a small but important step further to complete the bridge and have corporations be considered legal people. This transition was surely helped along and eased into common consciousness by the the entertainment industry constantly propping up the idea that there are and will be robots that have feelings that we should not dismiss. When we start to consider inanimate objects as having feelings and in need of defending, why shouldn’t Nike and Starbucks be so kindly considered and coddled? Not that I expect it to happen, but I wouldn’t be shocked or surprised by a story that involved a gang of murderers not being charged for the crime because they were doing a corporation’s bidding as its employees. The ironic thing to follow would be the anger in the streets directed at the corporation, not at the actual murderers and unable to be directed at the CEO who is impossibly distant and inaccessible to the common masses.
Nothing is eternally sacred because the evolving context around it will use and abuse it for all that its worth, and then leave it as a useless skeleton that can be looked at but not much gained from.