If anyone is asked, " Does the Constitution assure us that each one of us is free and equal, the responce would be, "yes". That has always been the answer. However that has not been the way the law has been applied in all cases. Why is that, if the answer is an accepted fact. The problematic is linguistic and structural. First, the words. The words are correct, but the actions are not. For example, anyone can enter a public conveyance and sit anywhere he or she wishes. But, that was not always the case. Some had to go to the back of the bus.
      Case after case, had held that every citizen in the United States is free and equal. So why was that not implemented in the South. Because the interpretive practices were based on purportedly moral, cultural, Natural Law, original intent and other dubious practices. But, if the interpretive practices apply the issue mathmatically and proceedurally to whomever is before the Court, namely before it hears any other Constitutional issue, the Court must first find and establish the freedom and equality of the party, since everyone is considered free and equal. Then, in its deliberation, that issue can only be weighed against the General Welfare clause. In other words, does this party's freedom and equality in the issue before the Court, effect the general welfare of the Country, namely, by not being able to sit anywhere he or she desires. Of course it doesn't. Its outrageous to deprive anyone from sitting anywhere she/he chooses. That law or practice would never have survived a mathmatical and proceedural application of the right of freedom and equality assured to every citizen. 
      The problematic is also structural and will always be. The One is always at the top and the Many at the bottom. That is the case and always will be. The structure at the top is abstract and it has to be that way. But the bottom, since it includes you and me, does not have to be abstract. Unfortunately, the top always interprets the rights and previledges of the bottom in an abstract way. However, some fundamental rights, like freedom and equality, apply to everyone, i.e. to each one of the Many. In other words , some rights apply mathmatically to each individual in the bottom. Of course, democratic words are very impressive and rightfully so. But they are abstract and some can mean anything the top wants them to mean. Words sometimes leave too much wiggle room within their own articulation. For example, we are at war with Iraq. Someone asks, why are we at war with Iraq. The answer, we are bringing them democracy.     
           Power is at the top because it is abstract and has been consolidated into a One. And truly, the top needs power. But, the rules or laws for allocating and exercizing that power are contained in the Constitution that constituted us as a Nation of People. The people at the Bottom do not have abstract power, they have real strength. They have strength because they are many, they are legion, they are number and in a democracy, each one must be counted. Abstractly, the bottom is weak, concretely or as number, the bottom is strong. Thats why revolutions are feared. " We the People...".