Just whom may take advantage of constitutionally protected rights in their own defense?

 

 Notice how it reads 'We the People' and NOT We the US citizens.

There are laws, and then there are rules. I see people complaining about statutory rules all the time that are not laws, and need not comply with the constitutional restrictions on government. The constitution ONLY limits the government from enacting unconstitutional laws against the People. It does NOT limit governments ability to enact rules for their subjects that they themselves MUST obey.  Until you realize this, you can read all the law books, statutes, acts, etc until your eyes bleed, but it won't do you much good.

If your just now waking up to what allows government to get away with doing what they have been doing, then let me point out one simple truth to you. If you are a US citizen, then you ARE considered an employee of government. A trustee. A dependent. As such, you are not governed by law, but rather by rules. Once you realize the different statuses between the People, and UNITED STATES citizens, everything suddenly becomes a lot clearer. 

The US government is a corporation, and as such has rules their employees must follow. Just like at Walmart. If your an employee, you most follow their rules when at work. These rules are NOT laws, as customers to the store are not required to follow them. Think of it this way, US citizens = Walmart employees, and the People = the customers. US citizens have acts and statutes to govern them as children of mother and father big brother gov. As US citizens, you do not have rights. You ONLY have privileges handed down to you by your mother and father gov. You are considered to be a child dependent on gov. Incapable of handling your own affairs, or providing for yourself. The People on the other hand, are considered adults, capable of handling their own affairs and providing for themselves.  The People take no benefits from their creation, gov. They are the ones who lay out the rules for government. 

There are also international laws which regulate government. These laws deal in commerce. Remember, gov is a corporation and must obey the rules of commerce. The Law Of Nations comprises most of these international laws, and it is written into the Declaration Of Independence. It is no more than a footnote, but having been written into the compact, becomes a whole part to that compact. 

Below, lists the law set up to regulate government by the People to protect themselves from a potentially overreaching government. It does NOT apply to US citizens. US citizens are NOT a party to it! 
Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah
14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64)

"No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it."

[5.] The Constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the makers of it at the time when they made it.
[6.] This sense is expressed by the four following propositions:

2. That the Constitution delegated to the General Government, or any department thereof, no power by implication, but only delegated such powers as it expressly enumerated.
3. That it delegated no exclusive power, unless the delegation was said to be exclusive.
4. That it laid no prohibition upon the States, except such as it specified.
5. That the words used in it, if susceptible of more meanings than one, were used in the meaning which was least favorable to the delegation of power, and most favorable to its retention.

Get this fact threw your head, and the entire mess begins to unravel before your very eyes.

 

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: