The Democrats’ war on the Bill of Rights, Part 1

By Nathan Barton

Note: Although this commentary attacks the Democratic Party, much of its membership, leadership, and supporters, please do NOT think that the Republican Party (the GOP), its leadership, much of its membership, and its supporters do NOT have their own war on the Bill of Rights, liberty, and freedom.  That is a subject for another commentary.

Most of us know that the Democratic record on “gun control” – opposition to the right to keep and bear arms” for at least the past half-century has been incredibly bad.  Even though not all call for the actual repeal of the 2nd Amendment, they try on a daily basis, across the Fifty States, to nullify and gut it.

But there is more in the Bill of Rights than our right to keep and bear arms that the majority of Democrats, and especially their leadership, want to get rid of.

When you look at the US Bill of Rights, objectively, article by article, it is clear that there is little in the Bill of Rights that Democrats love.

Article 1: Freedom of speech, religion, assembly and petition. Although this is supposed to be the “prime” article of the neo-liberal regressives (the left-wing), they pay nothing but lip service to it anytime there is “offensive” language or someone is targeted that is one of their key constituent groups.  (The crass case of Frederika Wilson is a perfect example. There are hundreds more in just the last year or so.)

Article 2: Right to keep and bear arms (freedom of defense) is of course the most evil of God-given rights protected by the Bill of Rights.  I do not think that there is a single one of the 20+ Democratic candidates for President in 2020 who supports the right of individuals to own and carry firearms (or any other arm) “without infringement.” We could list hundreds of laws – most originating from the so-called “liberal” political faction since the 1980s – attacking this right.  More and more have called outright for a repeal, instead of (together with Republicans) creating work-arounds.

Article 3: Most people don’t know this one: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” At first blush, this doesn’t seem to be a target of Regressives. But it is far from vestigial.  Among other things, this article is key to the concept of “the right to privacy,” and making the idea that governmental powers are limited clear.  It establishes a clear and definite distinction between “private” and “public” and is important to modern laws (which Regressives seek to repeal) such as the “castle doctrine.” It is this that has forced the corrupt DC municipal government to recognize at least a right to have arms at home. It should be applied to surveillance by police (both electronic and physical) and ties directly to Article 4. (We should also note that this article was violated repeatedly by the FedGov during both the War of 1812 and the War between the States, and its principle in the War on Some Drugs.) A key matter in understanding this is that “Soldiers” is used in a much broader sense than we normally use it today: modern police and even ALL government agents should be considered as Soldiers in the 18th Century sense. Further, “quartering” is more than just providing a place to live: it included furnishing food, bedding, even liquor. And note: it specifically calls for “CONSENT” – which is presumed to be voluntary.  AND there is no provision (as in other articles) for “compensation.” Even if there IS compensation, it is still quartering.

Article 4. Our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, is perhaps at greater danger today than ever before. As I mention above, this ties into Article 3: our home is our castle.  So to are our “businesses” (even when they are not in our homes).  This right is violated hundreds of times a day by police (whether they are called that or not) searching our automobiles and (for that matter, commercial vehicles). Thousands of times a year, businesses (and private persons) are required to sign away these rights in order to obtain licenses and permits. Especially for environmental purposes:  everything from burning brush to having a well or getting water from a stream, or even doing earthwork which might result in sediment discharging in storm water. Ditto for building permits, going to school, and other permission slips from government.

I will look at the rest of the articles of the Bill of Rights in later parts of this commentary.

No part of the Bill of Rights – no right recognized in it or considered to be inferred by it (such as our right to privacy) – is safe from the “liberals” or Regressives who control and dominate the Democratic Party. It doesn’t matter whether they are outright Socialists (or Communists) or not. (And again, the GOP is no different.)

If we do not understand this, we risk losing even more than we already have.  If we do understand, we can push back against those who want to drag us further into tyranny.



About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
This entry was posted in Nathan's Rants and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Democrats’ war on the Bill of Rights, Part 1

  1. enn ess says:

    Good article on our Bill of Rights. All should know them and hold any gov agency, or individual, accountable when they are violated. Best site I have found on our Declaration Bill of Rights and Constitution. View it and do some serious thinking about it. You’ll learn what you should have learned in the indoctrination centers you attended.


  2. Rick says:

    ‘Oh, it is one of those guys who capitalize ‘People’. Those guys are extremist, they want to topple everything we’re working for. They are radicals and must be prosecuted because they think we’re a bunch of mokes who make it up as we go.’

    ‘But he talks about the Constitution.’

    ”Haha, the Constitution. Yeah right, and he probably thinks he alone has the correct interpretation, he’s one of those ‘originalists’. You know, he’s not alone, there are thousands of these guys. We gotta do something before this gets out of hand. We can pass laws but we can also skew the news. So let’s do that. And, by Grabthar’s hammer, do it quietly. Just make them disappear. The press will go along.’

    (Of the six institutions named in the U.S, Constitution, the People is first named and is superior to all others.)


  3. Rick says:

    Many talk of pushback, some even say they are pushback. Yet, other than the random voice, none say by what means. Understood is there are legitimate reasons for not being specific. So, to each and every individual the question is put; where is YOUR line? How much will YOU tolerate before you words and correspondence to become ‘pushback’ against tyranny?

    A tag-on to that question is who do you have in your crosshairs? You have been watchful and observant, yes?

    To those who have been elected or appointed to positions of authority, you ignore the People at your own peril. Your duty is to represent the People, which you cannot fill as the obligation of your position unless you listen intently to the People. A cushy seat, a uniform, a badge, a select building, a security force; none will protect you. Only your subordinate service to the People may keep you from harm. (notice the word, ‘may’.) Make haste for time is not on your side.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s