1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[The Week] Progressives are ready to edit the Constitution. Are conservatives ready to answer?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Dec 17, 2021.

  1. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,504
    Likes Received:
    121,914
    https://theweek.com/gun-laws/100815...onstitution-are-conservatives-ready-to-answer

    Progressives are ready to edit the Constitution. Are conservatives ready to answer?
    W. JAMES ANTLE III
    DECEMBER 17, 2021 5:55 AM

    Should we rewrite the First and Second Amendments? In a contribution to a Boston Globe series on "editing the Constitution," law professor Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami proposes replacing the first two items in the Bill of Rights with more qualified versions. You can catch Franks' drift from the subtitle of her book: The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech.

    "As legal texts go, neither of the two amendments is a model of clarity or precision," Franks wrote at the Globe. But her rewrites don't improve the situation. The core idea is to make the amendments more consistent with promoting the general welfare, as promised in the Constitution's preamble. But Americans have traditionally — and rightly — believed strong protections for individual rights themselves promote the general welfare. Franks' versions offer much too little in that regard.

    Her edit of the First Amendment would on its face sharply curtail freedom of speech, affirming "the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievance" but making them "subject to responsibility for abuses." All "conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all person," she says.

    Who will determine the nature of these abuses, enforce that responsibility, and resolve the conflicts? What does "the principle of equality and dignity" mean in practice? After complaining of imprecision, Franks doesn't say. Her proposal sounds rife for abuse by a government that won't always be run by people who share her political preferences.

    Her Second Amendment is tweaked to get rid of all the icky stuff about guns and militias. Instead, self-defense is rooted in bodily autonomy, which is fair enough. But Franks would also give the government the right to take "reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole." More than a year into the pandemic, we can safely say there is no real consensus on what that means. And adding abortion to the Second Amendment, as she also does, may be the only possible way to make our most controversial amendment even more contentious.

    Nobody would ratify these complex reboots of the first two amendments. Yet liberals are increasingly openly hostile to the limitations the basic structure of the Constitution imposes on their political agenda, as Franks' piece and most of the Globe's other articles in this section demonstrate anew. Conservatives had better answer.



     
  2. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,593
    Likes Received:
    9,106
    “Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court, because that’s another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of firearms – they saw everything – to go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.

    donald trump - 2018
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  3. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,792
    Likes Received:
    41,230
    Endless opinion pieces, this one by a law professor in Miami. She got an opinion reply in The Week. Must have made her week!
     
    Invisible Fan and dobro1229 like this.
  4. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,504
    Likes Received:
    121,914
    additional commentary

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/12/the-left-vs-the-constitution.php

    POSTED ON DECEMBER 17, 2021 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN ACADEMIC LEFT, CONSTITUTION, DEFENDING THE FOUNDERS
    THE LEFT VS. THE CONSTITUTION

    One reason the left hates the American Constitution, and wishes to replace it, is that its embedded principles along with much of its explicit text is foursquare against the two main purposes of the left: class struggle and race struggle. Never mind the drive to abolish the electoral college, or the Senate, or admit new states to increase the odds of Democratic election victories. Just take in how the left wants to rewrite—which means abolish—the Bill of Rights.

    The Boston Globe is currently running a feature series about how to “edit” the Constitution, which of course means replacing it in practice with an egalitarian Constitution that would place much more power to control people and resources in elites like the kind of people you find in the editorial suites of the Boston Globe. How convenient.

    Take, for example, the suggestion on how to rewrite the First and Second Amendments from Mary Anne Franks, 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. The first two 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.

    How so? For a new First Amendment, Franks wants this (with the important parts in bold):

    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.

    Both the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion shall be respected by the government. The government may not single out any religion for interference or endorsement, nor may it force any person to accept or adhere to any religious belief or practice.

    And just who will decide what constitutes an “abuse” that will be curbed? It isn’t hard to guess about this. Get ready for the federal speech police, and an elaborate national speech code.

    The second paragraph really doesn’t add much or improve on the original Establishment clause, and might even backfire on progressives. Shouldn’t that last clause—”nor may it force any person to accept or adhere to any religious belief or practice”—apply to the religion of Wokism?

    For the Second Amendment, Franks says:

    The right to safeguard one’s life should not be conflated with or reduced to the right to use a weapon, especially a weapon that is so much more likely to inflict injury and death than to avoid it. Far better would be an amendment that guarantees a meaningful right to bodily autonomy and obligates the government to implement reasonable measures to protect public health and safety.
    The government is doing such a great job of protecting public health and safety in places like San Francisco and Portland right now—by all means let’s have more of these kind of government “obligations” to protect.

    But check out the proposed text of Prof. Franks’s 2nd 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.
    I like how her 2nd Amendment morphs into a constitutional guarantee of abortion, while leaving the right to bear arms highly ambiguous at best. Let me fix it: you no longer have a right to bear arms, but you do have the right to cut off arms—and legs, and heads, etc.—of the unborn.

    P.S. The Chronicle of Higher Education today is out with an article bemoaning J.D. Vance for saying “professors are the enemy.” I wonder where he could possibly have gotten such an outlandish idea?

    P.P.S. So far I have seen a proposed climate change amendment. What’s taking so long? Doesn’t the Boston Globe know we’re in a world-ending crisis?​
     
  5. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    25,743
    Likes Received:
    22,516
    A constitutional convention is the new “civil war is coming” for Repugs. (Accuse the other side of wanting to do what you really want to do in order to soften public stance on a topic they haven’t previously considered)

    Democrats can’t be baited into debating this side show. As out of date as some areas of the constitution are, having a convention now in this polarized political environment would be terrible for this country and would play into the hands of the hard right. Just to start, the word “regulated” would be gone from the 2nd amendment.

    What the left wants doesn’t come from changing our constitution because policies like universal healthcare aren’t necessarily constitutional structural elements. The right to vote is but there is NO WAY the Republicans would negotiate in good faith given how voting is something they are fundamentally fighting with every waking breathe.

    leave the constitution the way it is. We shouldn’t negotiate with what now are essentially political terrorists. Sometimes even condoning violence to preserve their power. Hard no.
     
  6. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    55,682
    Likes Received:
    43,473
    The left and their attack on the first amendment by forcing non religious students to say a pledge to a god they don't believe in or telling schools they can't teach certain curriculums because it hurts patriotic nationalist feefees or wanting to prosecute people for symbolic gestures like burning a flag or wanting to ban books with homosexual depictions from reading lists at schools or libraries.

    Ya that left certainly hates free speech. That darn left.


    Projection is the quintessential part of being a right wing American. Right @Os Trigonum
     
    AleksandarN and dobro1229 like this.
  7. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,207
    By "progressives", you mean one random editorial writer. Meanwhile, from last week...

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...repare-new-push-for-constitutional-convention

    Conservatives prepare new push for constitutional convention

    SAN DIEGO — Conservative lawmakers will mount a new push to call a constitutional convention aimed at creating a balanced budget amendment and establishing term limits for members of Congress in an effort to rein in what they see as a runaway federal government.

    State legislators meeting at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s policy conference here last week hope to use Article V of the Constitution, which allows state legislatures to call a convention to propose new amendments.

    “It’s really the last line of defense that we have. Right now, the federal government’s run away. They’re not going to pull their own power back. They’re not going to restrict themselves. And so this Article V convention is really, in my opinion, is the last option that we have,” said Iowa state Rep. John Wills (R), the state’s House Speaker pro tempore who backs the convention.

    At least two-thirds of states must pass a call to force a convention; so far, 15 states have passed the model legislation proposed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative group that backs free markets and states’ rights.

    Bills have passed at least one legislative chamber in another nine states, and bills have been introduced in 17 more states. The 15 states that have passed measures so far all have Republican-controlled legislatures and Republican governors; another nine states totally controlled by the GOP have yet to finalize passage, according to Convention of States Action, a project of the conservative group Citizens for Self-Governance.

    ...

     
    rocketsjudoka, Rashmon and Ottomaton like this.
  8. Haymitch

    Haymitch Custom Title

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    28,371
    Likes Received:
    24,021
    From 1869:

    The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.

    Read more:

    http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf
     
  9. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,048
    I can see some play on it as scrotus is tightly controlled but the real battlefront has always been lifetime judicial appointees (and state government control)

    No Constitutional "Revision" will end it nor will it give any side a permanent upperhand.

    Dems and libs should up their game on holding time. It took Cons long cons from the 70s to see the fruits of the labor.
     
  10. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    48,989
    Likes Received:
    19,932
    Lol at that manipulative headline.

    "Edit" the constitution.

    Like they're changing a drunken Facebook post or something.

    Gotta rile up the base somehow I suppose.
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  11. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,807
    Likes Received:
    20,465
    The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal constitution editor. They are true bastards.
     
  12. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    Exactly. That was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the headline. Conservatives have been pushing for years to “edit” the Constitution. Particular targeting the 14 Amendment.
     
    fchowd0311 and dobro1229 like this.
  13. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    25,743
    Likes Received:
    22,516
    Except Dems aren’t really talking about this… at least from what I see which is a lot as someone who consumes a good deal of left leaning media and gets emails asking for donations from the DNC.

    This is just another example of projection strategy like with the Civil War narrative strategy. Accuse the other side of something they aren’t doing that your side has fantasies about doing themselves. It softens the idea in the general public and starts debate. They’ve been doing this since McCarthy and Roy Cohn so it’s nothing new.

    Any Liberal with half sense of political knowledge will tell you that a constitutional convention is bad news for progressive ideals, freedoms, and human rights. You also cannot do a convention with bad actors. You have to only do one in a time of great unity like from the fallout of a major war, depression, etc. where the government collapsed and everyone is in it together to rebuild with consensus across the board. Doing this would be stupid and basically every liberal I know believes this and never brings it up.

    Don’t take the bait in letting them make you believe something they fantasize about is something the other side fantasizes about when they really don’t…. please.
     
    fchowd0311 likes this.
  14. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    55,682
    Likes Received:
    43,473
    I have to assume at this point those guys are idols to someone like OS.
     
    dobro1229 likes this.
  15. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,188
    Likes Received:
    20,340
    Yes but if a law professor in Miami suggests edits, oh boy, it's time to get those blogs written and talk about what those radical liberals are up to!
     
  16. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,504
    Likes Received:
    121,914
  17. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    25,743
    Likes Received:
    22,516

    Haha. Where do you find this sh$t?? Especially for someone who brags about your anti technology lifestyle to give yourself a claim of ignorance on anything that’ll give a negative representation of the right.

    Not sure how you do it Os. Kudos on the steady stream of troll.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now