‘Americans less positive about civil liberties’

US Declaration of Independence (Wikipedia)

The Associated Press reported the following:

Americans less positive about civil liberties: AP-NORC poll

September 10, 2021

Fewer in U.S. say government does well protecting rights now than in 2011

A new AP-NORC poll finds Americans are less likely than 10 years ago to think the government is doing a good job protecting rights guaranteed under U.S. law, including freedom of speech and the right to vote. …

About half now say the government is doing a good job protecting freedom of religion, compared with three-quarters who said the same in 2011.

More Americans now think the government is doing a poor job than a good one at protecting the right to equal protection under the law, 49% to 27%. In 2011, opinions were reversed, with more people saying the government was doing a good job than a poor one, 48% to 37%.

The poll also finds that 54% of Americans say it’s “sometimes necessary for the government to sacrifice some rights and freedoms to fight terrorism,” compared with 64% a decade ago. Now, 44% say that’s never necessary at all. …

It finds 44% now say the government is doing a good job protecting the freedom of the press, compared with 26% who think the government is doing a poor job. In both 2011 and 2015, about 6 in 10 said the government was doing a good job.

Americans are about equally divided on how the government is doing at protecting the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. About one-third say it’s doing a good job and about one-third say it’s doing a poor job. In 2011 and 2015, views were slightly more positive than negative, though less than half of Americans said the country was doing a good job. …

Americans also are now divided on whether the government is doing a good or poor job protecting the right to bear arms, 35% to 36%, but in 2011, more said it was doing a good job than a poor one, 57% to 27%. https://apnews.com/article/religion-gun-politics-voting-rights-only-on-ap-b23dfaf1b2d199c4be9ceb6060e0bb23

Irrespective of opinions, it is a fact that Americans have been losing rights and freedoms. Yesterday’s proposals by its President Biden to force/coerce vaccinations (see‘Attacking anti-vaxxers, Biden mandates widespread COVID shots, tests vaccine’) is just another step along that line.

Furthermore, religious freedoms are not respected as they once were. Views related to sexual immorality and abortion that do not go along with government narratives are suppressed, etc.

Those who live in the USA may wish to re-read its Declaration of Independence as its current government not only seems to have a disdain for more of the law of God, it also is probably more guilty than the old British rule for committing many acts that caused the colonists to revolt in the first place.

A few years ago, I read my family much of the Declaration and commented upon how the current USA federal, state, and local governments had committed most of the same actions that the USA’s revolutionary leaders objected to from the British king against our family (directly and/or indirectly) within that year or so.

In order to try to further protect the rights of the citizens of its new nation, the Bill of Rights came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791.

People such as Edward Snowden, despite whatever flaws he may have, have pointed out some of how the USA violated portions of the Bill of Rights, such as the 4th-6th amendment rights. So, he has been in hiding for that. Here is what those amendments were supposed to protect (some of which have been mishandled related to him personally by the US government):

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Interestingly, if it was written today and adopted, I suspect that the USA Supreme Court would probably rule the Declaration unconstitutional as it starts out with the following statements:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And the Declaration ends with the following statement:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Also, the Bill of Rights has tended to be viewed as intending to provide citizens minimalist protection by the US Supreme Court, which is in violation of its intent. July 4, 2013 does not include a court system or a country that is particularly keen on keeping the government out of most peoples’ lives.

Let’s look at some of the grievances that the colonists had against King George and his government, from the Declaration:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

Let’s stop here for a moment. US President, Barack Obama, refused to assent to the the Defense of Marriage Act (cf. Obama Announces He Wants to Repeal Defense of Marriage Act and Increase Debt), and the US Supreme Court, nullified that law (which was passed by Congress and signed by then President Bill Clinton) and basically also a proposition against homosexual marriage in California which had been approved by the voters there. Back in 1973, the US Supreme Court decided that State prohibition against abortions would not stand and that unborn babies could be killed. Did the government of King George do worse?

Here is more from the Declaration:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

The US Courts have told US States that they do not have the right to enforce various immigration laws and now plan (if certain immigration bills pass) to tell the States that they will have to recognize various foreigners in violation of existing laws and historical practices.

Here is more from the Declaration:

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

There are enough scandals from Washington, including those involving the current Attorney General Holder and various others that suggest that various ones in the USA government have done this, including ones associated with the Internal Revenue Service.