SOME OF THE things we are seeing today on the political scene are not representative of a civilized society. Extremists on both sides are pushing the boundaries past the limits of common sense, challenging the norms of democracy and putting the country in serious jeopardy.

“Just because something is legal,” wrote Chris Truax, an appellate lawyer from San Diego, Calif., “does not mean it is acceptable. After all, freedom comes with responsibilities.”

For example, many liberals are claiming the Constitution allows them to protest whenever and wherever they want. They point out that the First Amendment covers freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to assemble and the right to petition for redress of grievances.

But there are limits and reasonable people will agree to obvious limits. You cannot protest or march on private property. Most people will agree free speech is a protected right, but there is a time and a place for it.

Do we want to live in a society where anyone can be hounded anytime, anywhere, because of their political views?

Truax asked “Would fair-minded people think it is okay for a person to dress up as Elmo from Sesame Street and then shout obscenities at young children?” It might not be illegal, but civilized people would not accept that behavior.

If you and your family are enjoying a meal at a supper club and a rowdy group of loud, obnoxious people started harassing you, disturbing other patrons, forcing you to flee the restaurant mid-meal, taunting you as you make your escape to your car, is that acceptable behavior in your America?

Do you support a political party that finances protestors who crash our legislative assembles, spitting on senators, screeching and chasing representatives through the halls while causing chaos?

Do we have any boundaries? Are we OK with a decline in public standards of decorum? Are there no limits to coordinated interruptions, rudeness and offensive behavior when the sole purpose is to achieve a political goal?

One longtime U.S. Senate watcher recently said following the Brett Kavanaugh hearings “I am amazed how the Democrats will create a policy that gives them some short-term advantage and then, appear truly shocked and upset when the Republicans turn around and apply the same policy.”

It’s never too early for prospective 2020 presidential contenders to test the waters with trial balloons. Democrats have been quick to denounce the Republican Party’s pro-growth legislation. They say the tax cuts weren’t necessary and will likely add trillions of dollars to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Yet, those critics dismiss economists from the Congressional Budget Office who calculate that programs proposed by Democrats, like free college and free health care (single-payer Medicare for all) will likely cost more than $32 trillion over that same decade, and would require massive tax increases and still add trillions to the national debt.

Even moderate Democrats have felt the pressure to propose radical ideas to far-left fringe voters in an effort to gain traction for a presidential run in 2020. A common theme is a move toward socialism, gun confiscation, identity politics and open borders with unlimited immigration.

One of those 2020 hopefuls, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker used the Netroots Nation conference in New Orleans, La., to throw Barack Obama and his attorney generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch under the bus when he disparaged their leadership by saying “We are at a time where injustice has grown to be normal in our country.”

At the same conference, California Sen. Kamala Harris piled on criticism of the Obama administration by saying “Our criminal-justice system has failed and we have an economy that is at work for those at the very top, but not for those doing the hardest work.” She also defiantly said “I will not let anyone tell me to shut up when addressing identity politics issues.”

As the new names seek a following, a couple of old names, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, are quietly putting their teams back together for another run for power.

A number of liberal congress members from the House and Senate made statements that showed a willingness to abandon the tradition of due process and the presumption of innocence. They were willing to go there if it advanced their agenda.

Since the 2016 presidential election, in which Clinton won the popular vote by a few million votes, almost entirely from California and New York, Democrats have proposed changing or eliminating the Electoral College.

They said it is undemocratic. One even said “What kind of nation allows the loser of a national election to become president?” Well, the framers of the Constitution designed it that way. What would those same Democrats say if the Republican candidate collected more popular votes, but didn’t get enough Electoral College votes?

That wasn’t all. Some Democrats are saying the makeup of the Senate isn’t fair. Each state has two senators. They complain that sparsely-populated states like Wyoming and New Mexico shouldn’t have the same number of senators as do densely populated states like California, New York and Illinois, who happen to have mostly liberal populations.

Bitter about the newly conservative Supreme Court composition, yet to be proven, Democrats are researching ways they can regain the liberal majority. They are considering ways to impeach Kavanaugh, require appointments be only made after an election and expand the court to 15 justices from the current nine and then, “pack the court” with liberal judges.

These proposals are insincere. Democrats were quite content when their party seemed to have a lock on control of the Supreme Court and Congress.