This is a prime example of why our founders did not establish a “Democracy” as our form of governance (more after article).  The actual facts are not yet even known in the Trayvon Martin case, and the insufferable progs move to pass legislation in response.
(The Hill) — In the wake of the slaying of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, House Democrats are drafting legislation designed to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

The lawmakers want to adopt tougher rules for neighborhood watch programs, eliminate certain state gun laws, rein in racial profiling and require an examination of racial disparities nationwide.
The Democrats behind the legislation – all members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) – say the steps might have prevented last month’s fatal encounter between Martin, 17, an unarmed African-American walking home from a convenience store in Sanford, Fla., and George Zimmerman, 28, a Latino neighborhood watch volunteer carrying a 9mm handgun. Zimmerman, who was not arrested, says he acted in self-defense after Martin attacked him. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law allows deadly force in some cases of self-defense.
The outcry from black leaders and civil rights advocates has churned a weeks-long public debate over racism, gun reform, law enforcement and vigilantism. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation into the episode, but some Democrats on Capitol Hill say Congress also has a responsibility to intervene.  (read more)

This is a prime example of why our founders chose to frame our network of governance as a “Constitutional Republic”.   During the constitutional convention many various frameworks were considered, Monarchy, Democracy, Republic etc.   They chose a “constitutional republic”.
One one of the most important aspects of limited government was the consideration of “Democracy”, it was instantly refuted by the vast majority of the founders because they knew from all historical references Democracies do not last.  They kill themselves.  Just look at the fall of Rome for one of the most obvious examples.
Democracies in their purest form are given to short-sighted perspectives and decisions based “in the moment” rather than looking cautiously into the future.  In addition they are subject to rapid emotional reactions to current events, and much poor decision-making is a result of a rush to address without prudent forethought.  This leads to unintended consequences, and was the primary reason our founders dispatched that consideration almost immediately.
Various walls to protect liberty were constructed in the framework.  Everything was considered from eligibility, term limits, checks and balances, the works.
One of the reasons the legislature was divided was to provide one such protective wall against ill-conceived legislation.  The House of Representatives, the people’s house, was checked by the Senate originally the “states house” as the Senate members were appointed by the states.  This was a protective wall of liberty to keep emotional short-sighted legislation in check.   Unfortunately passage of the 17th amendment in 1913 blasted a big hole in that protection. 
I would argue that no specific amendment did as much damage to our constitutional principles as the 17th.   
The original framework of a “Constitutional Republic” is what makes our nation great, for if we were merely a democracy, we would be anything but great.  And to the extent that we no longer function as a constitutional republic, that greatness is rapidly ebbing away.
Why did we need a constitution?  Why are popular elections not a sufficient means of preserving liberty?
A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections.  In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition.  They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights.  Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison):

An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

Thus, a constitution that limited and divided the power of government was necessary to preclude elected officials from imposing tyranny on the people.  This is why they adopted a constitution with limited enumerated power, divided and checked across several branches and levels.
Sadly, we are currently living through the paramount form of elected despotism that our founders so presciently sought to forestall.  At some point during the progressive era of the early 1900′s, elected officials began to deviate from the constitution in a dramatic fashion.  At present, we find all of our founding principles under assault.  Many prominent political leaders in both parties seek to destroy our free markets, infringe upon our personal liberties, and abrogate our social values. Unfortunately, they have accrued a high level of success.  Moreover, they have prosecuted this revolution without firing a shot.  Instead, they have used the soft edge of the sword of elected despotism.
How have the elected officials been so successful in radically voiding our constitutional republic?  The answer is simple.  They have cynically manipulated their electoral mandate to create enough dependency for them to enjoy perennial power through democratically held elections.
We have reached the point at which almost every American is involuntarily subservient to the federal government for his or her retirement security and healthcare.  Over 45 million people, and one in four children, rely upon government for food stamps. By 2014, under the new Obamacare mandates, an estimated 79 million Americans will be enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP.  This circuitous cycle of dependency, perennial electoral power, and breach of constitutional restraints has transformed our nation from a constitutional republic to a majority-rule democracy.
This is the same majority-rule democracy that is being foisted upon the Middle East in the Arab Spring.  Democratic elections were held in Gaza and Lebanon, and they elected tyranny.  They will be held in Egypt, and they will undoubtedly do the same.  In the Middle East, elected despotism will manifest itself in Islamic tyranny, while in America, it has fostered redistributive socialism.  The fact that Arab nations are deposing of their dictators is meaningless.  As Jefferson observed in Notes on the State of Virginia, “it will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one.  173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one.”
This form of tyranny can only succeed beyond the confines of a constitution that is preserved with vigilance – a constitution that limits the power of government and preserves our rights as granted by God.  As founder John Witherspoon noted, “pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”
Unfortunately, even many political leaders who purport to abide by the constitution are misinterpreting the Tenth Amendment to promote tyranny on a state-level, if not on a national level.  In many respects, the hard-core blue states exercise even more officious nanny-state power than the federal government.  Dependency is so rampant among a broad section of some of these states that nobody but those who purvey socialism can assume power.  These states exemplify the worst fears of elected despotism that Jefferson decried in his writings.  In fact, he was specifically addressing unbridled power at a state-level in his book.
Article 4 section 4 of the Constitution prescribes that “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.”  It is incumbent upon us to restore our constitution as the supreme law of the land, so that our God-given rights are not revoked by democracy.