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

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. We here at TPOL looked at this problem about four years ago. (I know! The distant past, pre-COVID and pre-Uncle Joe! But bear with me.)

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 (including Uncle Joe and his puppet masters), 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 decade. We hear of new ones weekly.) It is important to remember that the politicians’ attack on the 1st Amendment is NOT a direct one: rather, it is done by proxy: the media itself, celebrities, and the woke mob.

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.  While Uncle Joe was not as vocal as most of his contenders, and while he has not made neutralizing the 2nd Amendment a highly visible priority, the current regime does NOT support the right of individuals to own and carry firearms (or any other arm) “without infringement.” Every incident is another opportunity to spew lies and demand more and more immoral and unconstitutional limits. They are biding their time but their goal is clear.

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.” It is not well-known, and neither are violations of  it. But it is far from vestigial.  Among other things, this article is key to the concept of “the right to privacy.” This clause makes clear the idea that governmental powers are limited.  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” and even “stand your ground.” While fewer and fewer governments try to prevent people from enjoying the right to have arms at home, the fight is not over. And as surveillance by police and “private” surrogates (both electronic and physical) expands, I believe this is more and more important. A key matter: we need to recognize 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. We will look at this more in the future.

Article 4. Our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, is perhaps at greater danger today than ever before. This is tied to 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 – none of which are among the powers specified to the FedGov in the Constitution. 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.

Let’s 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 enemies of liberty: 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.

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

  1. “it is clear that there is little in the Bill of Rights that Democrats love”

    I suspect that’s untrue for both Democrats and Republicans.

    Any given Democrat or Republican may be all in favor of the entire Bill of Rights — and willing to excuse his or her party and its candidates/officials for violating this or that amendment because, well, the other guys are “worse.”

    As far as RKBA goes, it would be hard to make the case that the current president is really any worse than the previous president (who decreed “bump stock” bans, demanded seizure of guns without due process, etc.). But many “pro-gun” people in both parties support(ed) or opposed the two anyway, per their party affiliations, not their gun rights positions.


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