Does this mean that they can't win?

[ma96782]

Rrrrrright, if you can't win.....change the rules.

Law prof suggests rewrites of First and Second Amendments that do not mention free press or bearing arms

Mary Anne Franks, the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law, has penned a proposal for a “redo” of the First and Second Amendments in a Boston Globe op-ed.

www.yahoo.com

BUT, But, but.....THEY (sort of) did win already. Rrrrrright.......

The 1st Amendment according to the Liberals.....
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless someone claims to be offended by your practice thereof."

The 2nd Amendment according to the Liberals..…
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless I say it's reasonable and makes common sense to me."

Nope.

Aloha, Mark

Read More

 

[3MTA3]

Rrrrrright, if you can't win.....change the rules.

Law prof suggests rewrites of First and Second Amendments that do not mention free press or bearing arms

Mary Anne Franks, the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law, has penned a proposal for a “redo” of the First and Second Amendments in a Boston Globe op-ed.

www.yahoo.com

BUT, But, but.....THEY (sort of) did win already. Rrrrrright.......



Nope.

Aloha, Mark

It's the very definition of what I call mental masturbation.

I'd write my very own perfect Constitution that takes into account modern culture and civilization, but somebody already did over 200 years ago.

 

[CRBMoA]

Cool.

Make sure to include your address in the book so we can all come down and move your furniture, too!

 

[joken]

She can kiss my arse

 

[CRBMoA]

Just like the gun "Buy Back"! They cannot take back what they did not give us!

I got my rights from My Father.

 

[Cavedweller]

Let them try. There is a process for amending the Constitution, and they are welcome to give it a shot. It would never be ratified.

"All people have the right to bodily autonomy..." So, no mandatory jabs, right? I wonder if they thought about that.

 

[ma96782]

Mind you that it's from a "Law Professor".

Aloha, Mark

 

[titsonritz]

Other than that, FOAD.

 

[bbbass]

The result, according to Franks, is that "the most powerful members of society" benefit from these rights at the expense of vulnerable groups. Franks did not elaborate on individuals in these groups.

Franks proposed that both amendments should explicitly state "individual rights within the framework of 'domestic tranquility' and the 'general welfare' set out in the Constitution's preamble."

For the First Amendment, her proposed "redo" reads:
"Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons."

It continues that the government must respect "the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion."

For the Second Amendment, Franks said the concept of self-defense should be expanded to include "a meaningful right to bodily autonomy" – such as on reproductive matters. Her proposal reads:
"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."

 

[Stomper]

She forgot the "suck farts from my sphincter consistent with the line of other people waiting to do the same", clause….

 

[WheatNuts]

What's with the left's obsession with abortion? It's really bizarre to me. Just close your legs, it's that easy...

 

[ma96782]

Aloha, Mark

 

[3MTA3]

The result, according to Franks, is that "the most powerful members of society" benefit from these rights at the expense of vulnerable groups. Franks did not elaborate on individuals in these groups.

Franks proposed that both amendments should explicitly state "individual rights within the framework of 'domestic tranquility' and the 'general welfare' set out in the Constitution's preamble."

For the First Amendment, her proposed "redo" reads:
"Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons."

It continues that the government must respect "the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion."

For the Second Amendment, Franks said the concept of self-defense should be expanded to include "a meaningful right to bodily autonomy" – such as on reproductive matters. Her proposal reads:
"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."

You would think a lawyer would know how to construct a law that could not be interpreted so many ways that it could not fail to be be misinterpreted. I can't believe that she passed the bar or that she is able to function as a lawyer.

The Founders only made two mistakes, IMO:

1. That educated people could possibly be this stupid in the future. If I ever invent a time machine I'm going to take AOC back there to show them just how remedial education and voter judgement would be in the future.
   
   
2. That English speaking people could possibly confuse the words "regulate" and "govern" or that they would not understand that "freedom of religion" also implies "freedom from religion" or that the word "Man" refers to all people and not just males.

 

[P7M13]

Holy Fvck!

​

Franks proposed that both amendments should explicitly state "individual rights within the framework of 'domestic tranquility' and the 'general welfare' set out in the Constitution's preamble."

For the First Amendment, her proposed "redo" reads:​

Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons."​

It continues that the government must respect "the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion."​

For the Second Amendment, Franks said the concept of self-defense should be expanded to include "a meaningful right to bodily autonomy" – such as on reproductive matters. Her proposal reads:​

"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."​

Idiot. The 2nd was not conceived soley for self defense. It is about tyranny and keeping it in check. To think this person is a constitutional law professor.

Below the Yahoo article is the statement...

Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting

Hmmm. I wonder why.... Not.

 

[Mark W.]

The Second does not give anything it is simply a restriction on the Government.

 

[RobMa]

Sounds like another leftist mouthpiece and traitor to this nation and its constitution…

 

[American123]

Holy Fvck!

​

Idiot. The 2nd was not conceived soley for self defense. It is about tyranny and keeping it in check. To think this person is a constitutional law professor.

Below the Yahoo article is the statement...

Hmmm. I wonder why.... Not.

Yeah… I am always very quick to point out to people that the intent of the 2nd amendment was first and foremost to dissuade and prevent a tyrannical government by, if necessary, shooting those that become tyrannical. The whole self defense aspect is just inherent after that.

 

[American123]

You would think a lawyer would know how to construct a law that could not be interpreted so many ways that it could not fail to be be misinterpreted. I can't believe that she passed the bar or that she is able to function as a lawyer.

The Founders only made two mistakes, IMO:

1. That educated people could possibly be this stupid in the future. If I ever invent a time machine I'm going to take AOC back there to show them just how remedial education and voter judgement would be in the future.
   
   
2. That English speaking people could possibly confuse the words "regulate" and "govern" or that they would not understand that "freedom of religion" also implies "freedom from religion" or that the word "Man" refers to all people and not just males.

In the founders defense, it would be hard to predict a future populace that is so dumb it can't agree on what a man and a woman are and that a man can't become a woman, and vice versa.

 

[bbbass]

You would think a lawyer would know how to construct a law that could not be interpreted so many ways that it could not fail to be be misinterpreted. I can't believe that she passed the bar or that she is able to function as a lawyer.

I disagree. She is perfect for today's legislators... writing laws that can mean anything to anybody. So that all things are legal under the law, but also all things are illegal under the same law. Then the law can be administered discriminently (sp) by those governing. They allow, or disallow, as they see fit, or as the mood strikes them. For instance in a clear case of self defense under the law, "Naw, we don't see it that way. Charge him with everything we can dream up!!" Then the jury has to try to figure it out based on the Judge's instruction of what the Judge thinks the law says. That's how it works today.

 

[bbbass]

Idiot. The 2nd was not conceived soley for self defense. It is about tyranny and keeping it in check. To think this person is a constitutional law professor.

A clear understanding of history would indicate that it was mainly about tyranny, and only tangentially about self defense... per the Preamble: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"