Again, I don't advocate for removing them, but that in order to protect your positive freedoms, the state will have to violate someone else's freedoms, negative

Again, I don't advocate for removing them, but that in order to protect your positive freedoms, the state will have to violate someone else's freedoms, negative or positive. At the moment, the US has no protection against a political party removing your freedoms from the constitution. If someone were to attempt it, they would be let off scotts-free, so to speak. There is no punishment for saying "poor people shouldn't have the right to vote or freedom of speech", which some of your politicians are already saying in a roundabout way. And once you lost them, you won't get them back as easily and that will be more dangerous that violating someone's freedoms to protect everyone elses.