Peter King has a ACU score of about 67 percent lifetime but has moved left in 2016-17 to scores averaging around 50 percent. He is significantly to the left in voting in Congress than most of his Republican colleagues in Congress but would be a more conservative Democrat. His big issue is national security.
The reason that basic constitutional rights are now squarely in the left right paradigm is that to the left, the Constitution is hopelessly flawed and since their numbers are not sufficient to amend it, they seek to avoid it and ignore it in their actions and the policies they support. Tell a leftist that the Constitution does not permit a particular policy that they want--for example a "wealth tax" on the rich without an amendment. The conniving type will try to figure out a weasel way of given the patina of legality to a policy to circumvent the Constitutional barrier. The honest type will outright reject any limit on the actions of the government as "antidemocratic", "fascist", and so on. Their view of history as an inexonerable process means that they throw a temper tantrum when history (and behavior of other people) do not comply with their desires of promoting "good" and punishing "evil" through government actions. Resistance to bien pensant thinking then becomes an issue vital to suppress and the moral equivalent of war.
The right, on the other hand, valuing order has granted far too much leeway to government in national security and prosecutors and now is finding out that these tools that they championed against terrorists and criminals are now being reoriented to by government to focus on them.
True libertarians basically inhabit the closet under the stairs and only come out every now and then because they tend to point out the excesses of both arguments.
Order without liberty is worthless other than preserving one's life; Equality without liberty is pointless as the equality of slaves and serfs obviously does not make any, but those prone to envy, happy. Justice is empty unless it addresses individuals and their circumstances and a rule of law is corrupted when some are more equal than others. In general, I would argue that a simple test of desirable government powers are that you assume the powers that your are granting to government will soon enough be in the hands of your worst political enemy. Then, what powers would you grant them? If you continue to argue special cases for this or that extension of government power, pretty soon you will find out that others are making a special case for applying that power to you.
As Washington allegedly said about comparing fire and government, "Government, like fire, is a good servant, but a bad master."