What Amendments Will Be In Jeopardy Under A Democratic Government?

Why the Constitution is under attack from the left | CreateDebate
Freedom of religion and freedom of association under attack in Idaho

I have written several articles on postings related to politics. A list of links have been provided at bottom of this article for your convenience. This article will, however address different aspects on these political events.

In the last 4 years members of the Democratic Party have targeted the 1st, 2nd and 5th Amendments for attack. Here are some details.

Denying Due Process:

Democrats have added unrelated addendums to bills on the fly so to speak. They have not allowed discussion on the add-ons. They say the bill is as it stands. They have refused any alternate bills without those additions. They have been holding the general population hostage trying to ram their agenda down the throats of Congress. Case in point, House Democrats staged a sit in to demand a vote on a gun control bill that would have denied anyone on the government’s “no fly” list the right to buy a gun. The problem is that someone can make it on the list “no fly” based on the flimsiest of evidence, mere suspicion, or for no apparent reason at all. As a result, denying everyone on this list the right to buy a gun would risk denying them due process, a protection guaranteed by the 5th Amendment, which says among other things that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Torching the 2nd Amendment:

When not trying to limit 5th Amendment protections in their zeal for gun control, Democrats are increasingly calling not just for restrictions on purchases for would-be terrorists or bans on “assault rifles,” but to scrap the 2nd Amendment entirely. Retired liberal justice John Paul Stevens wrote on op-ed saying the 2nd Amendment should itself be amended, so that the right to own guns only would apply to those who are actively serving in a militia.

Targeting Free Speech:

Incredibly, the Democrats’ disdain for the Bill of Rights includes even the 1st Amendment’s protection of free speech. Party leaders are openly pushing to limit free speech rights when it conflicts with their own viewpoints. A YouGov poll taken last May found that a majority of Democrats said they support government limits on what they consider to be “hate speech.” Only 26% of Democrats said they opposed such limits. In California, Democrats pushed a state bill that would have criminalized speech that questions the “consensus” on climate change. And Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee in March that she has discussed with her colleagues the possibility of pursuing civil actions against “climate change deniers.” Democrats have long expressed frustration, if not outright contempt, for the Constitution whenever it hinders their ability to enact some new government program. President Obama has repeatedly complained about the “messy” process the Constitution’s co-equal branches created, and has several times acted as though the Constitution’s limits on the president’s authority simply don’t apply to him.

Rewriting The First Amendment

Election 2018: Democrats took control of the House by talking endlessly about health care. But it turns out their actual priorities are things that they didn’t talk about much on the campaign trail. Now we know why. After having safely won the House majority, Democrats revealed their two top legislative priorities for next year: Limits on free speech and gun control. In other words, assaults on rights protected by the First Amendment and Second Amendment.

According to news accounts, H.R. 1 would, among other things, establish automatic voter registration and “reinvigorate” the Voting Rights Act. In other words, make it harder to root out voter fraud. It will also push public financing of congressional campaigns, with a 6-to-1 government match on small dollar donations. How many voters knew that’s what Democrats had planned? Those are bad enough. But the plan would also call for amending the Constitution to restrict free speech rights under the guise of campaign finance reform.

This is in reaction to the Supreme Court’s 2009 Citizen United decision, in which the court ruled that the First Amendment protects political speech, allowing corporations to spend money on political advocacy. The court ruled that “The government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity.”

Democrats have attacked the ruling ever since. And they want a constitutional amendment that would overturn the ruling “and other related rulings.” That’s so Congress can, in their words, “regulate the raising and spending of political money.” Sen. Ted Cruz had it right when he called this idea an assault on free speech. He said “it gives Congress power to regulate — and ban — speech by everybody.”

The Electoral College lessens the chance of voting fraud affecting the outcome of a national vote:

Several of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidates favored the abolishment of the Electoral College. Or, as once-confident candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren put it, “I plan to be the last American president to be elected by the Electoral College.” Furor over the Electoral College among the left arose from the 2000 and 2016 elections. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, respectively, won the popular votes. But, like three earlier presidents, they lost the Electoral College voting — and with it the presidency.

The Founding Fathers saw a purpose in the Electoral College. It ensured that small, rural states would retain importance in national elections. Historically, a constitutional n amendment has required a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and an additional ratification by three-fourths of the states through votes of their legislatures. But now there is a chance that some states could render void the Electoral College without formally amending the Constitution.

To circumvent the Constitution, Democrats have pushed “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,” an agreement among a group of states that would force state electors to vote in accordance with the national popular vote and ignore their own state tallies. Already, 15 states that have 73 percent of the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency have joined.

Liberal academics are supporting an array of other proposed constitutional changes as well. They ask: Why do two Wyoming senators each represent about 290,000 voters while each California senator represents 20 million? Forget that the founders established a constitutional republic, not a radical democracy, in order to check and balance popular and often volatile public opinion. One way was by creating an upper-house Senate that would slow down the pulse of the more populist House of Representatives.

In his recent eulogy at Rep. John Lewis’s funeral, former President Barack Obama proposed giving statehood to liberal Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. That would instantly give Democrats four additional senators.

Supreme Court Justices:

Turning to another issue, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the exact size and makeup of the Supreme Court. It only offers guidance on how justices are appointed and confirmed, and that there will be a chief justice. But since 1869, the Supreme Court has been fixed at eight associate justices and one chief justice.

Democratic presidential primary candidates Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, and Elizabeth Warren said they would consider ending that 151-year tradition and “pack” the court with additional justices in the fashion of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s failed 1937 effort. The left is apparently afraid of a second Donald Trump presidential term that might allow him four or five Supreme Court picks over eight years in office. The effect of such appointments could be mitigated by expanding the court to 12 or more justices, along with altering the rules for selecting them.

Eliminating Senate Filibuster:

Turning to another issue, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifies the exact size and makeup of the Supreme Court. It only offers guidance on how justices are appointed and confirmed, and that there will be a chief justice. But since 1869, the Supreme Court has been fixed at eight associate justices and one chief justice.

Democratic presidential primary candidates Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, and Elizabeth Warren said they would consider ending that 151-year tradition and “pack” the court with additional justices in the fashion of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s failed 1937 effort.

In his eulogy for Lewis, Obama also called for an end to the Senate filibuster. He claimed it was a racist relic from the Jim Crow era used to stymie needed social change.

Given recent polling, Obama now apparently believes Trump will lose the election, and Congress with it. But he also seems to fear that fundamental progressive transformation could be checked by a filibuster-happy Republican Senate minority. Democrats were perfectly happy with the filibuster — or the mere threat of the filibuster — from 2017 to 2019, when the Democratic Senate minority blocked much of the Trump agenda. But efforts to change time-honored rules for short-term gain are becoming more common.

Sanctuary Cities:

Sanctuary cities nullify federal immigration law to empower illegal immigration. The non-enforcement of laws against rioting and looting has become common in big cities. The First Amendment is inert on college campuses. The left should beware. Politics are volatile and often change. When Democrats destroy longstanding rules for short-term advantage, they may regret it when they too are in need of sober traditions and the U.S. Constitution.

Democrats have set up the perfect scenario; the perfect crime.

1) Tell the public, over and over, that President Trump is a dictator and won’t leave the White House.

2) Ensure a Biden victory with fraud. Do things at the state and local level like say it’s OK to count ballots days or weeks after the election, and leave the whole process in the hands of the overwhelmingly Democratic Party-supported postal service. Count on a compliant media and “deep state” government to back them up. If that fails, and President Trump exposes them, turn it back on him: “See? We told you he’s a dictator! He won’t leave!”

The question is: On whom will this work? Democrats and leftists only talk to each other. They only listen to media that tells them half truths, things that confirm all their biases. They only listen to experts who confirm their beliefs; they vilify anyone else who offers evidence to the contrary. Clearly this election fraud crime will work on such people. But Democrats had their votes anyway.

The danger here is the fraud. Fraud can work, if people are compliant or confused enough. President Trump is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. Elections are controlled, almost exclusively, by state, county and local officials. Many of the battleground states are run by Democrat governors, as in Pennsylvania, or by Democrat local officials, as in many Florida districts. The integrity of the election will depend on these officials. Rest assured they feel justified in doing ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to ensure President Trump leaves the White House.

We have many grave issues affecting us. The First and Second Amendments, the core of our Bill of Rights are under attack by the left. Capitalism vs. Communism — that’s literally now the choice. Individual rights vs. totalitarian state control, a sampling we’ve seen with the COVID fascism mostly orchestrated by Democratic leftists. THIS is our future. And the future is just months away. There will be no going back.

But there’s no bigger issue than election fraud. This one election is the only — and last — chance to reassert any element of the original American concept of freedom. If the election goes to the Democrats, it will send the message that the far left, AOC-type radical socialist/Communist extreme wing has won. And if they win by fraud — and even if they know we know it — it will empower them to go on and do far worse things than the election fraud itself. Like all criminals, they will be empowered by the fact they got away with it.

The integrity of this election in 2020 is the most important, momentous moment in American history since the outcome of the Civil War. It’s even more so, in some ways. Because if America goes down, then the whole world goes down. There will be no more freedom anywhere. Look at what happened in Hong Kong. The Chinese Communist Party took it over recently. There’s no more freedom now. All of China is Communist now. One party, no free speech, no gun rights, no freedom of association, no freedom of religion — nothing that annoys the one-party government.

That will be the case with the ENTIRE WORLD if we lose President Trump and the Republicans, the only firewall left. There will be no “last, best hope of earth.” In “We the Living”, by Ayn Rand, set in early Communist Russia, the citizens of the new Soviet state always talked of hope by “escaping abroad”. “Abroad” meant the U.S., or the freer nations in Europe. They knew life existed outside totalitarianism.

If the Democratic totalitarians get their way with this election fraud, there will be no more “abroad”. Not for anyone. If you love your children or grandchildren — or even if you love your own life — you had better think hard about resisting what’s going on. This is your last chance.

I have gone a little further in this article , than I intended. However, the data was too compelling. I have stated in previous articles, that I followed the story, no matter where it takes me. So I hope you don’t mind. I have covered the Democrats attempt at altering the Constitution. They obviously feel that this document stands in their way to retain their power base. If Biden and Harris win in November, you can rest assured that the Constitution won’t win.


investors.com, ” Democrats Attack 3 Of The 10 Amendments In The Bill Of Rights;” foxnews.com, “Victor Davis Hanson: US Constitution and traditions are under attack by Democrats,”  By Victor Davis Hanson; investors.com, “Dems Priority List Includes Attacks On Free Speech And Gun Rights;” drhurd.com, “Democrats Set the Stage for the Perfect Crime,” By Dr. Michael Hurd;


Below is a quote from Frederic Bastiat work The Law written in 1850. He was A Freemason and a member of the French National Assembly, Bastiat developed the economic concept of opportunity cost.

“When the law has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own proper purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own proper purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective. It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintai; to limiting and destroying rights which its real appeal was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder int a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.”

Political Posts Both National and International