REDO THE FIRST TWO AMENDMENTS

BOSTON GLOBE ^ | 16 DECEMBER 2021 | MARY ANNE FRANKS

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Speech and guns: two of the most contentious issues in America today, with controversies fueled not only by personal passions and identity politics but by competing interpretations of the Constitution. Perhaps more than any other parts of the Constitution, the First and Second Amendments inspire religious-like fervor in many Americans, with accordingly irrational results.

As legal texts go, neither of the two amendments is a model of clarity or precision. More important, both are deeply flawed in their respective conceptualizations of some of the most important rights of a democratic society: the freedom of expression and religion and the right of self-defense. These two amendments are highly susceptible to being read in isolation from the Constitution as a whole and from its commitments to equality and the collective good. The First and Second Amendments tend to be interpreted in aggressively individualistic ways that ignore the reality of conflict among competing rights. This in turn allows the most powerful members of society to reap the benefits of these constitutional rights at the expense of vulnerable groups. Both amendments would be improved by explicitly situating individual rights within the framework of “domestic tranquility” and the “general welfare” set out in the Constitution’s preamble.

[Dr. Sivana]

The preamble is NOT part of the Constitution. And of course, “General Welfare” and “Domestic Tranquility” mean different things to different people.

[Lurker]

Mary Anne is Exhibit 1 in favor of repealing the 19th Amendment.

L

[no-to-illegals]

Dear author, we can’t fix your stupid

[BenLurkin]

These two amendments are highly susceptible to being read in isolation from the Constitution as a whole and from its commitments to equality and the collective good.

What the Sam Hill is she talking about?

[BobL]

I would change the first to stop protecting the media as they are using that protection to destroy the country with impunity. Media outlets that lie need to be SUED out of business.

The Second Amendment, of course, is fine. But I do support liberals when they call for revisiting it, simply because it’s rare for them to even admit it exists and gives rights to people.

[ealgeone]

IF one reads the FFs and their positions on these issues the amendments are clear. It’s that simple.

[pgyanke]

Lawyer-speak explaining how easily plain words and intent can be twisted by underhanded double-talk.

[ConservaTexan]

Agreed.

[G Larry]

Pretty sure the Bill of Rights was divinely inspired and any rewrite would be authored by the opposing team.

[ealgeone]

Mary Anne Franks is the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law

*****

Doesn't take much to be a "distinguished scholar" these days does it?

[ealgeone]

Pretty much want the Left would love to do.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

How a bout a repeal of the 16th. The US got along fine till 1913 without an income tax.

The Congress has truly proven that “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

[Luke21]

What a blooming idiot.

[right way right]

My opinion is that the second amendment is there to protect the first from abuse.
I'm sure there are differing opinions about what constitutes abuse...so be it.
Let's have it out with these people.

[Lurker]

Throw in the 17th while we are at it.

L

[digger48]

The First does that.

Every citizen has the same rights as “the Press”

Black robed judges are the ones who gave them special protections

[ealgeone]

The Second Amendment’s idiosyncratic and anachronistic focus on militias and “arms” degrades the concept of self-defense. The right to safeguard one’s life should not be conflated with or reduced to the right to use a weapon, especially a weapon that is so much more likely to inflict injury and death than to avoid it. Far better would be an amendment that guarantees a meaningful right to bodily autonomy and obligates the government to implement reasonable measures to protect public health and safety:

*****

And there it is folks....a call to turn your protection over to the gubmint.

Pretty much the same thing the tallyban said when they took over this summer.

[RedElement]

She doesn’t like:
A) That you get to say what you want to say.

and

B) You get to defend your life against people who objected to what you said in A) above.

[Wilhelm Tell]

I can see “Domestic Tranquility” being interpreted as anyone who does not parrot the Party line is shot or sent to a re-education camp. We are now too “sensitive” and progressive to allow freedom of speech.