A law professor argued in a Boston Globe op-ed that the First and Second Amendments should be rewritten to change how it defines the freedom of the press and the right to bear arms.

Law Professor Rewrites The First, Second Amendment, Which Doesn’t Include Free Press Or The Right To Bear Arms

Kendall Tietz 

A law professor argued in a Boston Globe op-ed that the First and Second Amendments should be rewritten to change how it defines the freedom of the press and the right to bear arms.

Mary Anne Franks, a professor at University of Miami School of Law and author of “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech,” wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe arguing the Constitution has “competing interpretations” that “inspire religious-like fervor” leading to “irrational results.”

Franks’ book argued that the Constitution is “in the service of white male supremacy,” the Second Amendment is a “conservative fetish” and the First Amendment is a “liberal fetish” that “is less obvious but no less influential,” according to a description of the work written by Stanford University Press.

“The First and Second Amendments tend to be interpreted in aggressively individualistic ways that ignore the reality of conflict among competing rights,” she wrote.

She argued both the First and Second 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.”

The professor also believes the First Amendment should make clear that the freedom of expression is “consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses.”

The Second Amendment “degrades” self-defense because of its “idiosyncratic and anachronistic focus on militias and ‘arms,’” and the right to protect your life should not boil down to the right to use a weapon, she said.

She suggested the Second Amendment be changed to explain that all people have a right to “bodily autonomy,” which includes the right of self-defense against “unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters” and the government should take “reasonable measures” to protect public health and safety.

Franks did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Check out Tampafp.com for PoliticsTampa Area Local NewsSports, and National Headlines. Support journalism by clicking here to our GoFundMe or sign up for our free newsletter by clicking here

Android Users, Click Here To Download The Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. It’s Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon.

Advertisement

Login To Facebook From Your Browser To Leave A Comment

8 Replies to “Law Professor Rewrites The First, Second Amendment, Which Doesn’t Include Free Press Or The Right To Bear Arms”

  1. She is free to move to another country like anyone else that wants for that socialistic crap. Why do they want to change this country so much? We are about the only country people risk their lives to get to even if it is illegal sometimes. So there has to be something about it that is right the way it is. And as for that control over our health idea they keep spouting, if they are ” vaccinated” that means they wont get sick since that’s what vaccinations and immunizations do right? So how is it even an issue with people? If you want to be led blindly and forced to do things like get injected with an experimental “drug” because they said so then she has the freedom to do so. But otherwise in the real world, we dont trust them and we dont need to be told what to do with ourselves because we have these things called a brain and we know how to use those as well as our firearms. Do you think she has ever heard that from anyone? I’m not in the habbit of changing my way of life to make people like that feel better. I hope no one else in their right minds is either.

  2. I seriously destroyed the narratives and uncovered one of the biggest secrets hidden right in the public eye it could absolutely end all of this if the people see it for themselves but I can’t get anyone to take the evidence I found! It’s so clear that even the most delusional leftist and the government can’t deny it. it exposes the media, racial politics and all it just a few minutes of videos. Check out my YouTube page my TikTok has an shorter version. You gotta see it for yourself to understand the magnitude of what it means. If you are about ending the nonsese please look let me put all the pieces of the puzzle together for you. This is the biggest story of history and nobody will touch it! The government owes white people a huge apology and serious restitution. I’m a survivor of modern slavery a white American citizen and like most of us here today 27 million were minority owned. Why do we get silenced and targeted while our oppresors get public stages, praise and more resources than we do? My government helped my oppresors silenced me and took my rights now they target me and my children with the same narratives that keep people like me enslaved today. Wake up stand up for yourselves and have no shame fighting your oppression the only difference between me and you is I know my value you don’t understand the reality of it all yet watch my videos and wake up

    https://www.tiktok.com/@decodingreality?lang=en

    https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCpEBcmWb6Qys3C8x95QXqRw

  3. It’s because of the existence of communists like Franks that the words were written in the first place. The Constitution was written as a document of war against tyrannical England, and must remain as the banner of freedom for our nation.

  4. I like the “insertion” of reproductive rights in this piece of fluff’s “revision” of the Amendments. She seems to think women built and protected what she is enjoying today, as an environment wherein she can remain so. Not that women did not contribute, but the drive was by men, for women.

  5. Agreed. What I don’t understand is why they don’t move to countries like Venezuela, Ethiopia, China or North Korea. Besides, if they believe the lie that China eliminated poverty, they should have no problem with moving there. Notice that they don’t. I wonder why.

  6. If we ever allow any changes to be made to any part of the U.S. Constitution, we may as well give up on what the United States of America was designed to be and what made the U.S. such a great, powerful and wealthy nation. Those who want to make changes in the U.S. Constitution do not care about freedom, they only care about ways to abuse the wealth of the U.S. for more personal gains. They want to steal what American citizens have worked hard for and died for.
    No person should be allowed to have any government job, whether elected, appointed or hired, if they openly oppose the U.S. Constitution, thereby opposing the United States of America. Such Socialist minded people need to be removed from government in any and all positions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *