Posted on 12/16/2021 4:12:50 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
author of “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech.”
Bimbo... from the privileged life. Oxford as a student when 9/11 happened. Then Harvard where she refined her hate of America.
Hopefully sooner rather than later.
L
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of limitations on what a government is allowed to do, we are talking about privileges granted that may on a whim be withdrawn.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.
Her Chinese momma taught her well about collectivism being better than caring about individual freedom, then Oxford and Harvard refined it.
The 1st is likewise clear but is not absolute in itself. If says "Congress shall make no law...." That leaves it for the states to finagle. That is finessed by the "Incorporation" of the amendments to include the states in that ban. The 2nd is not affected by Incorporation. It already applies to all levels of the polity, arguably including individuals and property owners.
The author completely (I suspect intentionally) misses the point that the Founding Fathers were making. The intent is to protect us from runaway government ambitions by prohibiting said government from infringing on our right and means to protect ourselves.
Yes. Make it a right to shoot reporters who come within 10 feet of you or your property.
Sorry, sister....ain't happening here.
Hollywood Squares
Peter Marshall : “Pride, anger, coveteousness, lust, gluttony, envy, and sloth are collectively known as what?”
Paul Lynde : “The Bill of Rights.”
Mary Anne Franks is the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law and the author of “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech.”
"Cult of the Constitution."
Straight outta Progville, no hope for this one.
.
” She is also a vocal proponent of hand-to-hand self-defense techniques over the use of firearms: “What troubles me about Florida when it comes to the psychology of self-defense is that our answer for defending ourselves is always a gun. Krav Maga is a nuanced approach to defending oneself and protecting one’s space. You can respond effectively, but no one gets shot, no one dies.”
That’s nice bimbo. Senior citizens should all learn Krav Maga. And even though you are an supposedly an expert, a large male would destroy you despite what you see it so many hit movies today.
There is no “collective good” in the constitution. It promotes the general welfare by protecting individual rights.
The term "Bill of Rights" is just like "Bill of Laden", "Bill of Materials", "Grocery Bill", "Bill of Sale". It is a list. The confusion seems to center around the use of commas in the list. Most people get it.
It is hard to believe the author is a law professor.
The Federalist Papers makes it clear that a major purpose of the Second Amendment is to give people the right to keep and bear arms so that the States can form or call up a militia outside Federal control as a check against the Federal power conferred by the Constitution to form and operate a military. This was intended as a reassurance to the States as a restraint on runaway Federal power. Her proposal completely ignores this purpose.
The right to use deadly force in self defense in appropriate cases, including the use of firearms, was already well established by the common law when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The Second Amendment also constitutionalizes this right. Her proposal eviscerates it.
After all, you only have one life to live that we know about and the government is really in no position to protect it.
She appears to understand it, she just disagrees with it, and thinks that an authoritarian power is better than limited government.
This stems from people’s misunderstanding the “Bill”. The “Bill of Rights” is a comma separated list, much the same way as a “Bill of Materials”.
-PJ
The second amendment does not give any rights to our people. It only recognizes the God given rights that have always existed and forbids infringing upon them.
You damn right! End women’s suffrage!! Haven’t they suffered long enough?!
Start messing with the first and second amendments and someday she’ll be writing “The Diary of Mary Anne Franks” in someone’s attic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.