Democrats and the Bill of Rights

 The reaction by liberals to last week’s Supreme Court ruling that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms has had me thinking about where they stand when it comes to the constitution. To me the Supreme Court ruling was a no-brainer:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no room for interpretation to that sentence other that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. But if you look at a couple of Democrat legislators and their reactions you will see that they do not care at all about the PEOPLE’S right to keep and bear arms:

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J):

Today, President Bush’s radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future.

 The Supreme Court upheld the second amendment and it was greeted with contempt by many on the left, just peruse the liberal blogs and comments left on articles written about this ruling on various websites. You would think a constitutional right was taken away, not affirmed.

 There you have their stance on the second amendment, they are against it. But what about the first amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Prohibiting the free exercise thereof, that is part of the first amendment in regards to the freedom of religion that has been conveniently discarded in today’s America. Just try to put up a Nativity scene on the public common and see what happens. Can you say ACLU? The free exercise of religion has been taken away from Christians, the word “God” is practically the eighth dirty word that you can’t say on television (my little tribute to George Carlin there), and any mention of God in public is likely to draw dirty looks from the easily offended, or from those afraid to offend the easily offended.

 The first amendment then goes on to say; or abridging the freedom of speech. Where to start here? I guess I will start with liberal Republican and presumed presidential nominee John McCain. (And Democrat Russ Feingold).

 It is no longer acceptable to run a campaign ad before an election because of these two liberals. The freedom of speech has been restricted before an election. This campaign finance reform law that was authored by McCain and Feingold has been dubbed the incumbent re-election law because it virtually guarantees that the incumbent will be re-elected. It is now illegal to “speak” out against a candidate just before an election.

 But the attack on the freedom of speech is just beginning, right Nancy Pelosi? Democrats are looking to re-institute the fairness doctrine.

Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation

 The “Fairness Doctrine” is anything but fair. It is nothing but an attempt to destroy free speech on the radio. It is an attempt to kill conservative talk on the radio. It is an assault on the first amendment. It is an attempt by Democrats to silence people who disagree with their positions. Not only is this an attack on free speech, it also violates this section of the first amendment; or of the press. 

  So Democrats appear to be against the freedom of speech, religion, and press, as well as the right to keep and bear arms. All of which appear in the bill of rights. So what rights DO the Democrat believe in?

 Recently the Supreme Court made the horrible decision that alien enemy combatants captured on the battlefield were entitled to the right to have their case tried in American courts as if they were citizens and the constitution actually applied to them. They aren’t and it doesn’t. This right was given to people who have no “right” to it.

 The Supreme Court gave the “right” to a woman to decide whether or not she wanted to kill her unborn baby under the guise of the “right” to privacy. The “right” to choose has been written into the constitution, and it is heralded by the left.

 Neither of these issues are in the bill of rights yet they have been written into the bill of rights and the left has embraced these issues as if they were constitutional rights. The freedom of speech, press, and religion as well as the right to keep and bear arms are under attack by these same people. It makes you wonder where these people are coming from and how they view the constitution. 

 They consider the constitution a living document and they are trying to mold it into their belief system. They see rights that don’t exist and they ignore ones that do.