In just the past few months, in fact, members of the Democratic party  have targeted the 1st, 2nd and 5th Amendments for attack. Here are the details, in reverse order:
Denying Due Process
Last week, 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.
Get instant access to exclusive stock lists and powerful tools on Investors.com. Try us free for 4 weeks.
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."
Even the gun-control-supporting ACLU game out against such bills for that reason, saying that the watch list is "error-prone and unreliable" and that it would "place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names."
Liberal reporter Glenn Greenwald was even more emphatic. "In the lexicon of the leading liberal lights of the Democratic Party, someone deemed by the U.S. government to be suspicious -- placed in secret on a list, with no evidence presented and no court process -- is the equivalent of 'ISIS.' And to demand due process be accorded is to arm ISIS."
It's not as though the Democrats staging the sit in didn't understand this. In fact, they were protesting because the House leadership would only bring up a bill that included due process protections. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., complained that "due process is what's killing us right now" when it comes to denying gun purchases to people suspected of having ties to terrorism.
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.
"The Second Amendment needs some changing, because Americans don't agree with it and we've had it," Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., declared last week.
After Gabby Giffords was shot, liberal talk show host Bill Maher said that the Democratic party should "come out against the 2nd Amendment." Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., responded, "I sure wish they would."
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.
In a speech at an Iowa community college, for example, Hillary Clinton said: "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment."
Left unsaid is that the only way to do what she suggests would be to put restrictions on the 1st Amendment. A couple years ago, 54 Senate Democrats voted for a new constitutional amendment that would do just that.
Meanwhile, 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.
But the fact that a major U.S. political party -- which still considers itself mainstream -- is now willing to specifically target amendments designed to protect Americans from tyrannical government control is alarming, to say the least.