Fields: Republicans Against Much Of The Bill Of Rights
BY SAM FIELDS
Guest Columnist
I have heard for years that the Republican Party stands for “individual rights and “limited government.
The latest person to repeat this mantra is Howard K. Baker, former Senator and White House Chief of Staff for Ronald Reagan, who invoke the claim urging Repbulicans to get back to their core values.
The truth be known, it depends on the issue.
What follows is my analysis of The Bill of Rights and whether the Republicans/conservatives or the Democrats/liberals are likely to stand with the individuals over the State when issues/disputes arise.
It is based on legislation, party platforms and judicial decisions. I am well aware that there are exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions.
I invite your comments/brickbats.
First Amendment
Free exercise of religion
This is a tough one because it is mixed.
The nod on practicing religion in school goes to Reps. But on unusual religious practices, it goes Dems.
Freedom of Speech
Democrats/liberals.
Freedom of the Press
Democrats/liberals.
Right to demonstrate
Democrats/liberals.
Second Amendment
Right To Bear Arms
Republicans/conservatives.
Third Amendment
Not much of a record for either side when it comes to quartering soldiers in time of peace.
Fourth Amendment
Democrats/liberals are much more likely to stand with the individual versus the State/police on search and seizure. See: Patriot Act, Exclusionary Rule etc.
Fifth Amendment
Double Jeopardy
Democrats/liberals.
Self incrimination
Democrats/liberals.
Depriving due process Life
Democrats/liberal.
Liberty
Democrats/liberals.
Property
Republicans/conservatives.
Sixth Amendment
Speedy trial
Democrats/liberals.
Right To Confront Accusers
Democrats/liberals should note that Scalia authored Crawford v Washington which is pro individual.
Right to a lawyer
Democrats/liberals.
Seventh Amendment
No meaningful difference on the right to a trial by jury in civil cases.
Eighth Amendment
Prohibiting Excessive Bail
Democrats/liberals.
Cruel and unusual punishment
Democrats/liberals.
The Eighth Amendment may be the most telling about the philosophical divide.
The Supreme Court conservatives have found that the Eighth protects corporations from juries awarding excessive punitive damages, but it does not protect juveniles from execution. Or adults getting a life sentence for stealing a pizza.
Republican/conservatives also defer to the Executive branch on waterboarding, rendition, etc.
In sum: When Republicans/conservatives interpret the Eighth Amendment the score is Big Business 1, People O.
Ninth Amendment
Democrats/liberals.
The Ninth proclaims that the Bill of Rights is not intended to be a full list of our rights.
Notably is the Right to Privacy.
Court conservatives refuse to accept the concept, insisting that if a right is not explicitly in the Constitution it does not exist.
Tenth Amendment
Democrats/liberals are much more likely to give a broad interpretation to protect individual rights in this Amendment, which is designed to limit state and federal power.
Fourteenth Amendment
Enacted after the Civil War it was intended to prevent the former Confederate States from oppressing former slaves.
Democrats/liberals have generally sought to use it to protect the individual from government overreaching. Conservatives have usually sided with government.
So, is there a pattern?
Definitely, Conservatism as practiced in the United States is corporate statism that that puts property rights and order over personal freedom with the exception of guns.
Liberalism puts personal freedom over order and property rights.
Conservatives want to protect your right to make all the money you can. But they want to put you in jail if you are having too much fun with it.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:23 am
First Amendment has the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.
On the issue of preventing the government from establishing an official religion, the Dems/Liberals also get the nod too.
Good list.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
the founding fathers wisely decided that the taking of property was akin to taking liberty. Sam Fields belittles this concept like most liberals.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:54 am
Dear Sam Says
Fair enough, as long as you admit that conservatives belittle just about every other freedom.
For the most recent example see the suspension of Neil Rogers by WQAM. He accidently broadcast a dirty word. Beasley Broadcasting is terrified of the FCC censorship fines so they suspended Neil.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:54 am
Dear Sam Says
Fair enough, as long as you admit that conservatives belittle just about every other freedom.
For the most recent example see the suspension of Neil Rogers by WQAM. He accidently broadcast a dirty word. Beasley Broadcasting is terrified of the FCC censorship fines so they suspended Neil.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:31 am
Neil Rogers was taken off the air by his employer. The employer might be worried about the government, but it was the employer that did it. Rogers should have been taken off the air years ago for the reason that his show is boring. Boring. Borning. Borning. Borning. Borning.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:54 am
Self censorship out of fear of the government is not much better than direct censorship.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
You are definitely right on the issue of the Right to Confront Your Accuser. When Paula Jones exercised her consitutional rights of Discovery I did see a ton of Democrat/Liberals standing up for Bubba’s right to confront his accuser as he ran around threatening/bribing/intimidating/auditing every women he ever shook his worm at so they’d all be on “the same page” so as not to disclose a pattern of behavior entirely consisten with Ms. Jones’s complaint. Is that what you meant? I think your wrong however on the Democrat edge on the Eighth Amendment or is it not cruel and unusual punishment to pull a baby’s head out of it’s mother’s womb just to suck out it’s brains?
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 am
Hell no, that’s dinner
May 25th, 2009 at 11:01 am
You better hope it’s not a liberal. They are extremely bitter!