That anyone would ever need to write something so utterly nuts is proof of how completely insane the system has become.
Is that borne out historically? Is it such a surprise?
I'm a bit vague on the history, but I gather that, before
you had the US Constitution, human conditions and the conflict between religio-political ideologies which resulted from the then status quo
were bad enough that they fuelled a civil war.After
the Constitution, that became a new status quo.
The problem is that it now doesn't suit some people/organisations who/that were content to grow in the status quo.
But things change and for whatever reason you now have people and organisations with conflicting sets of religio-political ideologies and objectives, which means that they must attack the Constitution at its roots if they want to change things to suit their peculiar objectives.
Aggressive defence per the article above might be the only way to retain that rather precious Constitution. Aggressive defence is a recommended strategy in war and chess as well.
Passive defence could probably be perceived as weakness, and exploited as such, and that is arguably why the Constitution has possibly already been successfully eroded to some extent, in certain areas. There are even government-funded NGO or administrative functions (e.g., including such as the the EPA, TSA, Homeland Security) effectively taking on the responsibility for propaganda and extra-military and extra-police/judicial (lawmaking) roles in society, regarding security and the environment.
That's arguably your emergent "police state", right there.