In my opinion it's obvious. I don't think the Constitution is "a living document" in the sense that you can alter it to change with the modern times. There are measures in place to amend the Constitution, obviously, but not the main body. It's the main body of the document that limits the power and scope of the federal government, but it's basically been ignored since the early 20th century.
What I mean is by not allowing us to publicly disagree with the government's decisions, executing search warrants that are obviously pointless sometimes, people abusing their power (Reps and sens, police officers, school boards), not allowing us religious freedom (in some places), etc.
@funny You may be right, although the wording, "our constitutional rights," would seem to preclude non-Americans. But I would agree with you about the balance of power, and go further. They have the power because we have released it to them. However, we do not yet live in a totalitarian country, so the balance of power could swing back in favor of the people, if the people educate themselves and vote.
If you don't think the constitution is a living document and that the main body stays the same always, then it's been flagrantly disregarded since the early 19th century (possibly even the late 18th century). What part of the main body gives the President the authority to make land purchases unilaterally?
I would hardly consider land purchases to be flagrant disregard, but even Jefferson admitted that the Constitution had no provision allowing for the Louisiana Purchase. I'm not saying what he did was right, but I think we can all agree it was a benefit to America. Secondly, land purchase in no way threatens the rights of American citizens, and would therefore require less scrutiny. Lastly, I do not believe that even the main body of our Constitution is perfect, but I do firmly believe it to be the best possible version of any such document.