A prominent academic, a law school professor, no less wants to get rid of the first amendment.

You know what, I think she's only saying aloud what an increasing number of progressives and leftists actually think.

I'm going to expose the attack on math as an apologia for black academic backwardness and also a surefire way for America to lose its competitive edge in the world.

Jeff Brain, the CEO of CloudHub, is going to join me, is going to talk about the distinctive features of this alternative social media platform.

And I'm going to make the case of Christianity spreading worldwide why? Because it answers needs that are not found in modern secular culture. This is the Dineshthya Sussah podcast.

One of the beautiful things about the first amendment is its simplicity and its clarity. Congress shall make no law. Very clear. And Congress shall make no law a bridging freedom of speech or of the press.

Now, the former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black used to say that those words mean exactly what they say. Not that Congress can make some laws, but Congress shall make no law. And no law means no law.

Now, there's a University of Miami law school professor named Mary Ann Franks. And she's published an article in the Boston Globe. It's actually based upon a new book of hers. And the book itself is sort of a revealing title. It's called The Cult of the Constitution.

So you get an idea that here's a person who doesn't really like the Constitution. She thinks the Constitution is a sort of cult. And she wants to basically abolish the first amendment. When I say abolish, she essentially wants to rewrite it. She calls it a redo.

Now she wants to redo the second amendment, but I want to focus here on what she says about the first. Let's take a look at her redo so called. She basically says that she wants to, I'm going to read her revised version.

Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for a redress of grievances consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses.

So this is a modified first amendment, modified. She says in order to move it away from the concept of individual rights and toward the concept of the general welfare or in her view collective justice, social equality.

Now, the first thing to say is that all the rights in our Constitution are individual rights. There are no collective rights in the Constitution at all.

And this is no less true of the first amendment. It's true of the second amendment. You have an individual right to own a gun. The fourth amendment. You have an individual right against unreasonable search and an individual right to freedom of assembly.

The individual right to do process of law, the fifth amendment, or you keep going the 14th amendment equal rights under the law is not a collective right. It means that you as an individual have an equal right to be treated the same as somebody else in a similar situation by the law.

The law should be in a sense neutral among individuals.

And though the law might say you can't discriminate based upon race, there are no collective rights that one race gets to assert against another. The Constitution itself frames all rights in terms of individual rights.

But clearly there's an intellectual movement in progressivism to diminish the concept of individual rights and to try to suppress them in the name of some collective vision. This is the premise of critical race theory.

But what's interesting I think here is it's migrating to the rewriting of the Constitution itself. In other words, we're already seeing, we've seen in many areas, we've seen corporate censorship, we've seen digital media censorship, we've seen the brow beating of people in universities and in schools to have approved ways of thinking.

We've seen efforts to establish controls in all kinds of spheres, but it's a whole different thing to go right to the Constitution and in a place where the Constitution is not ambiguous.

We're not talking about phrases like cruel and unusual punishment that clearly offer a certain interpretive latitude. We're talking about one of the most clear unmistakable parts of the Constitution, the very first of the Bill of Rights.

Now I think that this woman Mary and Frank, although she's going kind of out front, she is saying out loud what a lot of leftists actually think. And what that means is that we're in grave danger as a society vis-a-vis our individual liberties, our civil liberties, because a lot of people in our elite classes don't believe in them.

...