Law professor wants to edit Bill of Rights to enact restrictions on free speech, make Second Amendment about 'bodily autonomy'

[pipedreams]

Another crackpot law professor.

 

"A law professor proposed Monday that two major edits must be made to the United States Constitution in order to place new restrictions on the First Amendment and Second Amendment.

Mary Anne Franks — a law professor at the University of Miami Law School — published an essay in the Boston Globe advocating that both amendments be edited to promote the collective good, arguing that each is too individualistic in its current form."

https://www.theblaze.com/news/law-professor-wants-to-edit-bill-of-rights-to-enact-restrictions-on-free-speech-make-2a-about-bodily-autonomy?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20211221Trending-Basement&utm_term=ACTIVE LIST - TheBlaze Breaking News

"Considering the gravity of the rights enumerated and protected in the First Amendment and Second Amendment, and given the considerable difficulty of amending the Constitution, Franks' ideas are unrealistic at best."

[MO Fugga]

Cunts like her are the reason it's the way it is.

[DWARREN123]

May she loose her 1A and 2A rights.

[tous]

If she is a law professor, then she knows how the amendment process works.

However, it appears that this law professor is a hippie Marxist, thus all law is subject to her communist whim or she can simply ignore the law.

And this is who is teaching the young'uns.

[railfancwb]

11 minutes ago, tous said:

If she is a law professor, then she knows how the amendment process works.

However, it appears tat this law professor is a hippie Marxist, thus all law is subject to her communist whim or she can simply ignore the law.

And this is who is teaching the young'uns.

Joe McCarthy continues to be proven correct

[railfancwb]

Figured this would get it 15 minutes of fame. 

[Historian]

I guess she missed this:

350.05 Oath of office.—Before entering upon the duties of his or her office each commissioner shall subscribe to the following oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am qualified to hold office under the constitution of the state, and that I will well and faithfully perform at all times the duties of Florida Public Service Commissioner, on which I am now about to enter in a professional, independent, objective, and nonpartisan manner; that I do not have any financial, employment, or business interest which is prohibited by chapter 350, Florida Statutes; and that I will abide by the standards of conduct required of me by chapters 112 and 350, Florida Statutes, so help me God. In case any commissioner should in any way become disqualified, he or she shall at once remove such disqualification or resign, and upon his or her failure to do so, he or she shall be suspended from office by the Governor and dealt with as provided by law.

[tous]

This thread has caused me to ponder, and we all know how dangerous that is.

Can an amendment to the United States Constitution be amended or must the original amendment be repealed and replaced by the new one?

 

[MO Fugga]

10 minutes ago, tous said:

This thread has caused me to ponder, and we all know how dangerous that is.

Can an amendment to the United States Constitution be amended or must the original amendment be repealed and replaced by the new one?

 

Prohibition is a good precedent for this, I suppose.

[railfancwb]

4 minutes ago, MO Fugga said:

Prohibition is a good precedent for this, I suppose.

Think you are correct. One amendment to prohibit consumption of beverage alcohol and a second amendment to cancel the first 

[norton]

[railfancwb]

In spite of ongoing government actions the Bill of Rights list some of the individual rights - not privileges - the government is not to touch. Our rights as citizens are ours, not governments to hand out or limit. 

[Gunboat1]

There will come a time when people like this will need to be held fully accountable.   No quarter.

[Batesmotel]

To paraphrase an old movie. 
 

Teach her the law. Law 762. 

[Walt Longmire]

She should be deported.

 

[tous]

The remarks for this thread are interesting.

Some suggest, nay, demand, that this woman be punished somehow for her opinion, a few in a most egregious manner.

Is that not what most here object to? The current hippie Marxist regime and the cancel culture of the past few years?

It reminds me of many, many threads of yore about drivers on the freeway, that the police (all-powerful government)  should stop and arrest drivers in the left lane for going the speed limit so that others, behind  them, can freely exceed the speed limit and satisfy the indignant driver's singular desire to get somewhere.

It is the very definition of me-first, regardless of how absurd.  The behavior one expects from a child.

 

One the hard lessons of science and engineering is perceiving things for what they are, not what we want them to be; or not to be.

The Universe laughs at us if we try to mold it to suit our wants, desire, prejudices or satisfy our egos.

I have been laughed at a lot.

Years of training, disappointment, embarrassment and experience developed discipline to see what is there, not what we wish was there, is it relevant, does it matter to the problem at hand?

 

Are that woman's remarks relevant?

I suggest that they are not.  She may have a limited audience that will agree with her, as we have seen, another group that disagrees with her and likely the vast majority of humans that neither agree of disagree because they do not know that the article, the opinion, exists.

Does her opinion matter to the problem at hand?

The woman is not a queen or empress, not the President, governor or mayor; she is not an elected member of a legislative body, not a billionaire wealthy enough to buy the President, governor, mayor or legislature.  In fact, this woman had very little ability to change government, society or culture beyond her little classroom and sycophant students.

She is not relevant, her opinion doesn't matter.

 

So, why is everyone angry?

Don't be those that you purport to despise; don't become those whom you rail against.

Don't behave as a child.

 

NB I admire and respect all of those in this place. 

 

[pipedreams]

11 hours ago, tous said:

She is not relevant, her opinion doesn't matter.

So, why is everyone angry?

Don't be those that you purport to despise; don't become those whom you rail against.

Don't behave as a child.

NB I admire and respect all of those in this place. 

 

That's the best thing about this place, everyone shows respect................

[Gunboat1]

10 hours ago, tous said:

The remarks for this thread are interesting.

Some suggest, nay, demand, that this woman be punished somehow for her opinion, a few in a most egregious manner.

Is that not what most here object to? The current hippie Marxist regime and the cancel culture of the past few years?

It reminds me of many, many threads of yore about drivers on the freeway, that the police (all-powerful government)  should stop and arrest drivers in the left lane for going the speed limit so that others, behind  them, can freely exceed the speed limit and satisfy the indignant driver's singular desire to get somewhere.

It is the very definition of me-first, regardless of how absurd.  The behavior one expects from a child.

 

One the hard lessons of science and engineering is perceiving things for what they are, not what we want them to be; or not to be.

The Universe laughs at us if we try to mold it to suit our wants, desire, prejudices or satisfy our egos.

I have been laughed at a lot.

Years of training, disappointment, embarrassment and experience developed discipline to see what is there, not what we wish was there, is it relevant, does it matter to the problem at hand?

 

Are that woman's remarks relevant?

I suggest that they are not.  She may have a limited audience that will agree with her, as we have seen, another group that disagrees with her and likely the vast majority of humans that neither agree of disagree because they do not know that the article, the opinion, exists.

Does her opinion matter to the problem at hand?

The woman is not a queen or empress, not the President, governor or mayor; she is not an elected member of a legislative body, not a billionaire wealthy enough to buy the President, governor, mayor or legislature.  In fact, this woman had very little ability to change government, society or culture beyond her little classroom and sycophant students.

She is not relevant, her opinion doesn't matter.

 

So, why is everyone angry?

Don't be those that you purport to despise; don't become those whom you rail against.

Don't behave as a child.

 

NB I admire and respect all of those in this place. 

 

Respectfully, I disagree.  Imagine if a doctor told you "Don't worry about those cancer cells.  They aren't that many yet and the system they are infecting isn't one of your critical organs.  They're basically irrelevant, so no worries!"

I'd say it's time to look for a new doctor.  Cut the cancer out.  Law professors shape upcoming legal minds, and in time those minds become judges and prosecutors, and in the worst case, Justices.  They may become politicians.  

Know your enemy.  No quarter.

[railfancwb]

9 hours ago, Gunboat1 said:

Respectfully, I disagree.  Imagine if a doctor told you "Don't worry about those cancer cells.  They aren't that many yet and the system they are infecting isn't one of your critical organs.  They're basically irrelevant, so no worries!"

I'd say it's time to look for a new doctor.  Cut the cancer out.  Law professors shape upcoming legal minds, and in time those minds become judges and prosecutors, and in the worst case, Justices.  They may become politicians.  

Know your enemy.  No quarter.

Wasn’t Obama supposedly a law professor?

[Gunboat1]

43 minutes ago, railfancwb said:

Wasn’t Obama supposedly a law professor?

Yeah.  He was made editor of the Harvard Law Review too.....without ever having published a single article therein.

 

Obozo is a manufactured construct.....an empty suit of symbolic value, but decidedly underwhelming personal and intellectual abilities.  He is a tool of the Revolution.   The question is:  who made him, and who pulls his strings?

[railfancwb]

1 hour ago, Gunboat1 said:

Yeah.  He was made editor of the Harvard Law Review too.....without ever having published a single article therein.

 

Obozo is a manufactured construct.....an empty suit of symbolic value, but decidedly underwhelming personal and intellectual abilities.  He is a tool of the Revolution.   The question is:  who made him, and who pulls his strings?

Wasn’t just his strings. A lot of other people had strings pulled for him to be labeled editor.