Which constitutional rights are disposable?

In a recent article in The Atlantic Monthly's online edition, Conor Friedersdorf questions why conservatives focus almost exclusively on the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms while willingly, even eagerly, accepting federal encroachment on other constitutional rights.

The article has certain problems--the author's definition of issues best left to states is standard liberal fare, moreover his assumption that liberal institutions and media stood alone in opposing executive branch inroads on constitutional rights is wrong--see Ron Paul for proof.

Still, the article makes a number of points really well. In particular, the warning about a standing army backed by the words of founding fathers is one every lover of freedom should consider.

Comments

Love to see a liberal exposing the hypocrisy of "conservatives." Perhaps it might help "conservatives" learn the difference between "conservatives" and conservatives.

Or the difference between conservatism and the form of error known as libertarianism.

Of course we've had a standing army for most of the history of the Republic.  And even with the addition of the Air Force to the mix the current forces are the smallest they've been in decades.

Wow! A really good article, one of the best I have read lately.

 I'm still waiting to hear of a single example of where the use of drones, imprisonment of Americans fighting against America, etc. has been a bad outcome.  Ordinarily, we say, "There may be cases in which government action X is useful, but we don't allow  it because it will more often be abused."  But I still haven't heard of any abuses with the anti-terrorist policies that are so criticized. Gun control, on the other hand,   will definitely deprive some people of the means to defend themselves against criminals.

Add new comment