A nice summation of the foundational assumptions of Critical Law Theory. In fact, a carefully written - and they were - amendment lays out rules for everyone that do NOT benefit only the powerful. One may certainly criticize the inevitable flaws in clarity of language resulting over two and a third centuries but not because of any tendency toward "inequity".
For example, here is her reimagining of the Second Amendment:
All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.
This is essentially an excision of the right to arms in favor of the right to abortion, with complete dependence on whatever the government considers "reasonable", up to and including prohibition of the possession of the means of that self-defense. We are no longer even talking about rights in the sense of limitations on what a government is allowed to do, we are talking about privileges granted that may on a whim be withdrawn. In short, she simply does not understand the function of the Bill of Rights as a guard against limitless governmental power. That's pretty fundamental.
She appears to understand it, she just disagrees with it, and thinks that an authoritarian power is better than limited government.