No, Professor, We Shouldn't Cut Up Our Rights

by
posted on March 10, 2022
Bill of Rights

There is only one thing worse than listening to an American citizen propose that we cut up the U.S. Bill of Rights, and that is listening to an American citizen propose that we cut up the U.S. Bill of Rights while pretending they are doing no such thing.

In The Boston Globe last December, Professor Mary Anne Franks did precisely this. As part of a symposium on the U.S. Constitution, Franks argued that Americans should seek to “edit” the “deeply flawed” First and Second Amendments so that they are less “aggressively individualistic.” The first two provisions within the U.S. Bill of Rights, she concluded, “are highly susceptible to being read in isolation from the Constitution as a whole and from its commitments to equality and the collective good.” And so, they must go.

There is, of course, a reason that the First and Second Amendments tend to be “interpreted in aggressively individualistic ways,” and that reason is that the First and Second Amendments are aggressively individualistic rights—that is their purpose, their point, their function. A First or Second Amendment that was not “aggressively individualistic” would be of no use whatsoever. It would be a dead letter—not worth the paper it was written on.

Franks’ piece is filled to the brim with euphemisms that all mean the same thing in practice. She suggests that, instead of interpreting the First Amendment as we do currently, we should “resolve” any conflicts that arise “in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.” This means that the First Amendment should have no teeth. She suggests that we should “provide stronger and fairer protections for the right of expression.” This means that the First Amendment should have no teeth. She suggests that the First Amendment should be “subject to responsibility for abuses.” This means—yes, you’ve guessed it!—that the First Amendment should have no teeth. As it currently exists, the First Amendment serves as the most-robust protector of speech and conscience rights that the world has ever seen. Franks wishes to change that—and not for the better.

Her prescription for the Second Amendment is even more extreme. Instead of guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, she wants Americans to alter the Constitution so that it protects “a meaningful right to bodily autonomy and obligates the government to implement reasonable measures to protect public health and safety.” This is another way of saying that we should abolish the right to keep and bear arms and trust fully in the efficacy of the government.

Astonishingly enough, or perhaps not astonishingly at all given her treatment of the First Amendment, her edited Second Amendment wouldn’t protect the private ownership of guns at all. Having described the Second Amendment’s “focus on arms” as an “idiosyncratic and anachronistic” mistake that “degrades the concept of self-defense,” she removes any reference to firearms. Americans, she argues, should enjoy “the right to defend themselves against unlawful force ... .” It’s unclear how that right would work in practice in Professor Franks’ America, where law-abiding Americans would have no right to the most-effective means of self-defense.

To clear up exactly how that “defend themselves” bit would, or really wouldn’t, work, Franks insists, “the government ... shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.”

So, disarmament.

Ultimately, Franks is assuming that you are too stupid to see what she is doing. Summing up her proposal, she contends that Americans should abandon their traditional constitutional setup and “situate individual rights within the framework of ‘domestic tranquility’ and the ‘general welfare.’” This is a fancy way of saying that the natural rights Americans currently enjoy wouldn’t actually be legal rights anymore.

Next time, Franks could just say that—and spare us all the merry dance.

Latest

Springfield Armory DS Prodigy
Springfield Armory DS Prodigy

Gun Review: Springfield Armory DS Prodigy

The DS Prodigy provides the same magazine capacity as most striker-fired polymer pistols; however, it also provides the familiarity–and much-better trigger–of the 1911.

Gun Owners Aren't to Blame For Surging Violent Crime

Increases in violent crime are the result of a number of factors, yet some politicians and media members are blaming lawful gun owners. Here is why.

NRA-Backed Constitutional Carry Introduced in Florida

Another state looks to advance freedom for its citizens.

Confiscation in Canada

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's authoritarian zeal to disarm his citizens is a warning to any free people–and it shows how fundamentally important our constitutional protections are.

America's Rifle

Gun-control activists and politicians don't want citizens to know the truth about these semi-automatic rifles. So here is the history, and the contemporary facts, about these rifles.

The New Balance of Power

Almost as soon as the voting was over, President Biden once again said that he wants to sign a ban on pretty much every firearm sold in the U.S. Though he likely doesn't have the votes to do so in this Congress, this balance of power does give him some opportunities to go after our freedom.

Interests



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.