Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Which Rights Are Threatened by the Federal Government?
Which Rights Are Threatened by the Federal Government?
Mar 6, 2026 9:58 AM

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that a majority of Americans now believe the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms:

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that 53% think that the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms while 43% disagree.

In March 2010, opinions were divided over whether the government represented a threat to personal freedom; 47% said it did while 50% disagreed. In surveys between 1995 and 2003, majorities rejected the idea that the government threatened people’s rights and freedoms.

The growing view that the federal government threatens personal rights and freedoms has been led by conservative Republicans. Currently 76% of conservative Republicans say that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms and 54% describe the government as a “major” threat. Three years ago, 62% of conservative Republicans said the government was a threat to their freedom; 47% said it was a major threat.

The fact that38% of Democrats say the government poses a threat to personal rights and freedoms and 16% view it as a major threat, shows that it’s not just a partisan issue. But while there may be agreement thatthe federal government threatens our rights and freedoms, there is likely to be divergence of opinion on which rights and freedoms are beingthreatened. Rather than just having people respond with yes or no to the question, “Federal government threatens your personal freedom?”, it would be helpful for respondents to explain what they mean.

We could, for instance, have them go down the list of rights in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and point out which they feel arethreatened. Like most Americans, I’m no legal scholar. But here is how I would respond:

Amendment: First Amendment

Enumerated rights: Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

Status check: Although religious liberties have been eroding for some time, the recent controversy over theHHS contraceptive mandate has brought a renewed interest to the very real threats posed by the federal government. AsKyle Duncan, General Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, recently said, “The administration obviously realizes that the HHS mandate puts constitutional rights at risk.” Indeed, they do—and they don’t care. The Obama administration believes in a watered-down “right to worship” rather than a robust freedom of religious.

Threat level: Serious threat

Amendment: Second Amendment

Enumerated rights:Right to keep and bear arms

Status check:No enumerated Constitutionallyguaranteedright outrages andembarrassesliberal Americans more than the Second Amendment. Their goal of disarming the country and instituting a total ban on all firearms is frustratingly checked by thirteen words: “theright of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Fortunately, recent Supreme Court rulings have ruled that those words have meaning and so the threats to this right have been somewhat constrained.

Threat level: Real, but limited

Amendment: Third Amendment

Enumerated rights:Protection from quartering of troops.

Status check:Take heart, America: there is a least one enumerated right thatthe federal government is not likely to violate anytime soon.

Threat level: No threat

Amendment: Fourth Amendment

Enumerated rights:Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Status check:Considering that the biggest threat is the x-ray screening by the TSA at the airport, this right is still fairly secure.

Threat level: No serious threats

Amendment:Fifth amendment

Enumerated rights:due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

Status check: In 2005,the Supreme Court ruling inKelo vs. City of New Londonexpanded the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. The Court held that the general benefits munity enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. So your private property is probably secure as long as some government-backed developer doesn’t want to replace your house with a strip mall.

Threat level: Continuous

Amendment:Sixth Amendment

Enumerated rights:Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

Status check:Your right to a have a counsel represent you in a public trial by a jury of your peers is secure—unless President Obama puts you on his “kill list.” If that happens then an “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government” can authorize a drone strike to wipe our you and your Sixth Amendment rights.

Threat level: Serious, but limited in scope

Amendment:Seventh Amendment

Enumerated rights:Civil trial by jury.

Status check:Like the Third Amendment, the right protected by the Seventh appears to be fairly secure.

Threat level: No general threats.

Amendment:Eighth Amendment

Enumerated rights:Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Status check: I haven’t had to post bail in awhile so I’m not sure what’s considered excessive.

Threat level: No threat?

Amendment:Ninth Amendment

Enumerated rights:Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Status check:The Ninth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that fundamental rights could not be denied simply because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. How this affects individual right is open to interpretation.

Threat level: No threat?

Amendment:Tenth Amendment

Enumerated rights: Powers of States and people.

Status check:The Tenth Amendment states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Since FDR’s New Deal legislation,the merce clause” has trumped the Tenth Amendment, allowing the federal government to take almost any powers it wants from the States and the people.

Threat level: Has been threatened so long that the amendment is all but meaningless.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Unintended Consequences and Wind Turbines
With the surge in oil prices, there’s renewed interest in alternative energy options. Numerous countries have gradually taken steps to promoting renewable or clean energy technologies, and it seems the United States is drifting more towards favoring alternative energy options as the Obama Administration is looking at banning off shore drilling along the continental shelf until 2012 and beyond. However, before we move farther down this road, a critical analysis of the pros and cons is a must. A more...
Budgets, the Church, and the Welfare State
In this mentary, which will appear tomorrow, I summarize and explore a bit more fully some of the discussion surrounding evangelical and religious engagement of the budget battles in Washington. One of my core concerns is that the approaches seem to assume too much ongoing and primary responsibility on the part of the federal government for providing direct material assistance to the poor. As “A Call for Intergenerational Justice” puts it, “To reduce our federal debt at the expense of...
Shane Claiborne’s Budget Babbling
Writing for the Huffington Post, Shane Claiborne is also asking “What Would Jesus Cut?” I’m still opposed to the whole notion of reducing Christ to budget director, as my earlier post points out. But Jesus as Secretary of Defense of the United States or rather, Jesus as secretary of peace as proposed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich is equally unhelpful. Mark Tooley, president of IRD, has already weighed in on Shane Claiborne’s not so brilliant drafting of Jesus for president. As...
‘A Call for Intergenerational Justice’ and the Question of Economic Growth
While there is much to applaud in the Center for Public Justice and Evangelicals for Social Action’s “A Call for Intergenerational Justice,” the lack of discussion of the problem of economic growth is troubling. I believe Don Peck is correct when he writes in The Atlantic: If it persists much longer, this era of high joblessness will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults—and quite possibly those of the children behind them as well....
A Response to ‘What Would Jesus Cut?’
Jim Wallis and a number of other Christians involved in politics are trying to gain attention for the question, “What would Jesus cut?” The answer to this question is supposed to be as obvious as it is in other moral contexts. For example, would Jesus lie about the useful life of a refrigerator he was selling for Best Buy? No way. Would he bully a kid into giving away his lunch money? Not a chance. Would you find him taking...
Jeff Jacoby: Jesus won’t tell them what to cut
Writing in the Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby says that a “more fundamental problem with the “What Would Jesus Cut?’’ campaign is its planted axiom that Jesus would want Congress to do anything at all.” As a believing Jew and a conservative, I don’t share the religious outlook or political priorities of Wallis and his co-signers. But you don’t have to be Christian or liberal to believe that in God’s eyes, a society is judged above all by its concern...
Taking His Name in Vain: What Would Jesus Cut?
Ray’s post pointed to something that’s been bugging me about Jim Wallis’ “What Would Jesus Cut?” campaign. As with the “What Would Jesus Drive?” campaign (“Transportation is a moral issue.” What isn’t these days?), Wallis’ campaign assumes the moral high ground by appropriating the Holy Name of Jesus Christ to advance his highly politicized, partisan advocacy. Jesus es an advertising slogan. And what is implicit here is that those who oppose Wallis are somehow at odds with the Gospel of...
Archbishop Chaput: The American experience and global religious liberty
A brilliant assessment of where we are. (HT: American Orthodox Institute Observer). Subject to the governor of the universe: The American experience and global religious liberty March 1, 2011 – Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Denver, addressed the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University. A friend once said – I think shrewdly — that if people want to understand the United States, they need to read two documents. Neither one is...
Opposing Views: America’s Debt Crisis and ‘A Call for Intergenerational Justice’
Last week’s issuance of “A Call for Intergenerational Justice: A Christian Proposal on the American Debt Crisis” has occasioned a good bit of discussion on the topic, both here at the PowerBlog and around various other blogs and social media sites. It has been interesting to see the reaction that ments about the Call have generated. Many have said that I simply misunderstood or misread the document. I have taken the time to reread the document and do some reassessment...
Abortion and Intergenerational Justice
I’m not sure I have ever really encountered the term intergenerational justice before this discussion over “A Call for Intergenerational Justice,” at least in any substantive way. This unfamiliarity is what lay behind my initial caveat regarding the term, my concern that it not be understood as “code for something else.” The Call itself provides a decent definition of the concept, or at least of its implications: “…that one generation must not benefit or suffer unfairly at the cost of...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved