After all, we formed our country by kicking out the existing ruling power. We then wrote a Constitution based on the concepts of separation of powers and defined roles to keep the government from becoming too powerful and oppressive. Too bad these concepts have been eroded for the past 100 years.

Our Constitution has a means defined in it for making changes. To get an amendment passed and ratified, it must pass Congress with a 2/3rds supermajority in both houses and then be ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. The amendment process is intentionally difficult to keep whimsical changes from being passed, and with the exception of Prohibition, that has worked well.

What some Europeans can't seem to grasp is that we aren't going to change our Constitution to appease them, nor is our government just allowed to ignore major sections of the Constitution at will as described in article p linked yesterday. You would resent it if the US forced your governments to ignore your laws, why can't you accept the fact that we resent it when other countries they to force us to ignore ours?

As for distrust of government, it varied by individual and even the part of government you're talking about. Some people, especially those on the hard Left, see government as the solution to every problem, real or perceived. Others may like some parts of the government like the military but distrust other parts like the EPA. A small number distrust all government.

One's proximity to government can also be a factor. I find that city and county government is more accountable to the public than state government, and the federal government is nearly unaccountable to anyone. That's why most of us distrust completely unaccountable systems like the world court. What recourse is there if (when) someone on that court abuses the system? Sorry, but no thanks.