"Answer me this--why does the Constitution spend twice as much lentgh discussing the role of the Legislature than it does the Executive?"
Because the legislature is supposed to be balanced with the executive. The legislature, comprised of a larger voice, makes the laws. The executive, by definition, executes the laws. So the concentration SHOULD be with the making of the laws, not the enforcement. How can an executive office properly perform without the adequate power given to the legislature to fulfil it's role? Without the proper power in the legislature, then the voice of the people isn't adequately represented. But therein lies the problem.
The balance of power is delicate, in that the power is based in the people. Our country's government was supposed to be a goverment for the people, by the people. But people got busy. And as knowledge, technology and travel increased, and general prosperity, people became more concerned with their immediate needs, so far as to forget that they have a responsibility to be part of that government, that their opinions and voices were a necessary part. They also forgot that the constitution also addresses planning for our posterity. For the most part, they elect and forget, without having studied who and why they're electing. So they've screwed themselves as well as their posterity.
So even if you recognize and know how to fix the problem, how do you get the cooperation of the masses, as that is what's needed? When most people don't understand that they have a responsibility, how can you hold them responsible? And how do you get the individuals who know they have a responsibility to take the time to act on that responsibility? It seems that it all comes down to choices, but they're being made without a FULL knowledge of the consequences, or people just don't care. And how do you fight against that?
Which brings me to your next question: "As to balance, there are clearly illegal and legal forms of protest--and there is also civil disobedience--so you "think the people who break the law in a protest" cause more problems---what do you think about the women's suffrage movement? Rosa Parks? Anti (motorcycle) helmet rallies? etc--If you are laying in front of my ambulance you are getting run over--we have both made a choice."
I guess I hadn't thought that out completely. I think that if we engage the way we ought to, according to our forefathers' plans, then the illegal protests would be unnecessary. However, in an imperfect world, and thus an imperfect government run by imperfect people, there will be times when the boat has to be rocked for the lesson to be learned.
Choices made after the fact, when people didn't take responsibility when they had the chance to make the most difference, are much less effective. I think there are many times that change can be wrought through legal means, but people don't want to take the time to speak that way. So they go with the more convenient, less time consuming expression. Rosa Parks was not able to accomplish what she wanted through legal means because of the ignorance or laziness of the majority. If my kids were in danger, and the only way I could save them was to break a law, I would break it. But I would have carefully thought about the consequences and been sure that there was no other way.
So I agree that it comes down to choice. Which brings me to my last questions (for now). Where is the accountability? When consequences are not immediate, and individuals are lacking in morals and ethics, or simply commitment, how can we overcome the weight of those not holding up their part of the load?