What do you think?
Rate this book
The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech
In this controversial and provocative book, Mary Anne Franks examines the thin line between constitutional fidelity and constitutional fundamentalism. The Cult of the Constitution reveals how deep fundamentalist strains in both conservative and liberal American thought keep the Constitution in the service of white male supremacy.
Constitutional fundamentalists read the Constitution selectively and self-servingly. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Constitution elevate certain constitutional rights above all others, benefit the most powerful members of society, and undermine the integrity of the document as a whole. The conservative fetish for the Second Amendment (enforced by groups such as the NRA) provides an obvious example of constitutional fundamentalism; the liberal fetish for the First Amendment (enforced by groups such as the ACLU) is less obvious but no less influential. Economic and civil libertarianism have increasingly merged to produce a deregulatory, free-market approach to constitutional rights that achieves fullest expression in the idealization of the Internet. The worship of guns, speech, and the Internet in the name of the Constitution has blurred the boundaries between conduct and speech and between veneration and violence.
But the Constitution itself contains the antidote to fundamentalism. The Cult of the Constitution lays bare the dark, antidemocratic consequences of constitutional fundamentalism and urges readers to take the Constitution seriously, not selectively.
Constitutional fundamentalists read the Constitution selectively and self-servingly. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Constitution elevate certain constitutional rights above all others, benefit the most powerful members of society, and undermine the integrity of the document as a whole. The conservative fetish for the Second Amendment (enforced by groups such as the NRA) provides an obvious example of constitutional fundamentalism; the liberal fetish for the First Amendment (enforced by groups such as the ACLU) is less obvious but no less influential. Economic and civil libertarianism have increasingly merged to produce a deregulatory, free-market approach to constitutional rights that achieves fullest expression in the idealization of the Internet. The worship of guns, speech, and the Internet in the name of the Constitution has blurred the boundaries between conduct and speech and between veneration and violence.
But the Constitution itself contains the antidote to fundamentalism. The Cult of the Constitution lays bare the dark, antidemocratic consequences of constitutional fundamentalism and urges readers to take the Constitution seriously, not selectively.
274 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 1, 2019
147 people are currently reading
1160 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
February 25, 2019
Mary Anne Franks says the nation’s forefathers would be dumbfounded walking the streets of New York today. They would be unable to rationalize women walking about unsupervised, managing men and running companies. They would be dumbfounded to see blacks mixing in with whites as if they were equals, running companies and managing white men.
The Constitution they settled on was focused on securing privilege for white males only. So when so-called originalists interpret the articles and amendments today, they are showing their hand of racist bigotry and white male supremacy. She calls it the founding fraud – that the framers were never dedicated to equality and democracy but that we are all equal under the law the way the documents were written. White males fight that.
Franks has some experience in inequality under the Constitution. She is a woman, of mixed race, from a terribly poor background. That’s 0 for 3. Now as a Constitutional scholar, she brings a clear and unsentimental eye to the prejudice and inequality the framers baked into their founding documents.
The Cult of the Constitution is an enormously quotable review of how far off course America has slid. It is densely packed with clear legal analysis, embarrassing examples of corporate and judicial hypocrisy, and justifiable anger at the extortion by white supremacists to hijack the nation as its personal fief. It is powerful, compelling and damning. Sadly, it is also a relief to know someone is thinking this way, because all we seem to see is successive challenges by the most privileged to make it even worse.
It begins with a comparison of religious vs constitutional fundamentalism, and keeps returning to that comparison as the facts reinforce it. Both believe the words (Bible, Constitution) are to be taken literally, that they were given by God, and that any interpretation of them is blasphemy. Anyone who disagrees is not just wrong but evil. Franks says “I have seen firsthand how often people use the Constitution the way religious fundamentalists use the bible – selectively, self-servingly, and in bad faith.” At the same time, most Americans have never read the Constitution, don’t know what’s in it, and the little they are certain of is wrong. “The combination of reverence and ignorance is at the heart of all fundamentalism,” she says.
Her book analyzes three hot-button areas: freedom of speech, guns, and the internet. In every case, she proves how far wrong both the fundamentalists and the courts have gone, twisting the words of the Constitution to meet the demands of the selfish and the greedy, the racist and the fanatically “conservative”.
Franks shows the hypocrisy of the first and second amendment battles with two clear examples:
- If free speech is a “marketplace of ideas that will eventually resolve into truth,” as the conservatives would have it, then why is it not permissible to advocate communism? The ACLU will defend neo-nazis and other purveyors of hate speech into this marketplace, insisting on only total freedom. But they draw a line at communism.
-For the second amendment, gunlovers insist they should be able to wander the aisles of their local Walmart with an AR-15 slung over their backs. But if a black person did that, the police would be there in seconds. Open carry is for whites only. It is just more proof that the issue is not freedom, but white male supremacy.
White male supremacy appears throughout The Cult of the Constitution. It has become evident the founders wrote it for themselves, to cement their hold on society. Today, Franks says, white males complain constantly about the erosion of their exalted position, whining louder and more pathetically than any of the actual victims of inequality. She shows that nothing has abridged their freedoms, but rather that they continually try to expand them as others encroach on their exclusive rights.
The most confounding story in The Cult of the Constitution is of the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU. It has been spending countless millions defending neo-nazis, the KKK, hate speech, the alt-right and revenge porn online. It celebrates its “victories” claiming the country is “a little bit freer” now, thanks to its efforts. Journalists have linked it to conflicts of interest in accepting huge donations from the tobacco industry and the Koch Brothers to promote the unfettering of corporate “speech”.
The rot seems to have set in with Hugh Hefner, praising the ACLU for helping legitimize pornography in the 1950s, and calling on readers to donate to the organization. Since then, it has been feeding at the trough of whoever wants to donate large sums. Rather than being on the opposite side of issues involving the NRA, for example, the ACLU complements its efforts to spread guns as widely as possible. It doesn’t seem to matter that its positions on these issues (for these donors) conflicts directly with stances it takes on other issues. The ACLU can be bought. Franks is incensed at it all. There is a special place in hell for the ACLU.
There is so much arguing over the meaning of individual amendments, rights and freedoms, that we have lost sight of the Constitution as a framework for the nation, Franks says. When we focus on one amendment and twist it into a meaning that pleases corporations, for example, there are knock-on effects to other amendments and rights. As we continue on this path, we lose perspective, and the whole thing is perverted into an unrecognizable shape.
This refreshing distancing and looking at it with a neutral perspective is what has been missing from the discussion all along. I have reviewed numerous books on constitutional issues, and they all start by taking the arguments as legitimate. Franks tosses them out. She puts them in societal perspective instead of legal status: “The belief in absolute rights – self-defense or otherwise – is incompatible with a commitment to the constitution,” she says.
“Misinformation campaigns, conspiracy theories and propaganda have poisoned public discourse and promoted scientific, political and cultural illiteracy,” she says. The internet is being used to discriminate against women, minorities and vulnerable groups in unprecedented ways. Claims by white male supremacists that their speech rights are being cut off on the internet becomes more pathetic whining in Park’s telling of it. It’s an upside down world that Franks rights.
David Wineberg
The Constitution they settled on was focused on securing privilege for white males only. So when so-called originalists interpret the articles and amendments today, they are showing their hand of racist bigotry and white male supremacy. She calls it the founding fraud – that the framers were never dedicated to equality and democracy but that we are all equal under the law the way the documents were written. White males fight that.
Franks has some experience in inequality under the Constitution. She is a woman, of mixed race, from a terribly poor background. That’s 0 for 3. Now as a Constitutional scholar, she brings a clear and unsentimental eye to the prejudice and inequality the framers baked into their founding documents.
The Cult of the Constitution is an enormously quotable review of how far off course America has slid. It is densely packed with clear legal analysis, embarrassing examples of corporate and judicial hypocrisy, and justifiable anger at the extortion by white supremacists to hijack the nation as its personal fief. It is powerful, compelling and damning. Sadly, it is also a relief to know someone is thinking this way, because all we seem to see is successive challenges by the most privileged to make it even worse.
It begins with a comparison of religious vs constitutional fundamentalism, and keeps returning to that comparison as the facts reinforce it. Both believe the words (Bible, Constitution) are to be taken literally, that they were given by God, and that any interpretation of them is blasphemy. Anyone who disagrees is not just wrong but evil. Franks says “I have seen firsthand how often people use the Constitution the way religious fundamentalists use the bible – selectively, self-servingly, and in bad faith.” At the same time, most Americans have never read the Constitution, don’t know what’s in it, and the little they are certain of is wrong. “The combination of reverence and ignorance is at the heart of all fundamentalism,” she says.
Her book analyzes three hot-button areas: freedom of speech, guns, and the internet. In every case, she proves how far wrong both the fundamentalists and the courts have gone, twisting the words of the Constitution to meet the demands of the selfish and the greedy, the racist and the fanatically “conservative”.
Franks shows the hypocrisy of the first and second amendment battles with two clear examples:
- If free speech is a “marketplace of ideas that will eventually resolve into truth,” as the conservatives would have it, then why is it not permissible to advocate communism? The ACLU will defend neo-nazis and other purveyors of hate speech into this marketplace, insisting on only total freedom. But they draw a line at communism.
-For the second amendment, gunlovers insist they should be able to wander the aisles of their local Walmart with an AR-15 slung over their backs. But if a black person did that, the police would be there in seconds. Open carry is for whites only. It is just more proof that the issue is not freedom, but white male supremacy.
White male supremacy appears throughout The Cult of the Constitution. It has become evident the founders wrote it for themselves, to cement their hold on society. Today, Franks says, white males complain constantly about the erosion of their exalted position, whining louder and more pathetically than any of the actual victims of inequality. She shows that nothing has abridged their freedoms, but rather that they continually try to expand them as others encroach on their exclusive rights.
The most confounding story in The Cult of the Constitution is of the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU. It has been spending countless millions defending neo-nazis, the KKK, hate speech, the alt-right and revenge porn online. It celebrates its “victories” claiming the country is “a little bit freer” now, thanks to its efforts. Journalists have linked it to conflicts of interest in accepting huge donations from the tobacco industry and the Koch Brothers to promote the unfettering of corporate “speech”.
The rot seems to have set in with Hugh Hefner, praising the ACLU for helping legitimize pornography in the 1950s, and calling on readers to donate to the organization. Since then, it has been feeding at the trough of whoever wants to donate large sums. Rather than being on the opposite side of issues involving the NRA, for example, the ACLU complements its efforts to spread guns as widely as possible. It doesn’t seem to matter that its positions on these issues (for these donors) conflicts directly with stances it takes on other issues. The ACLU can be bought. Franks is incensed at it all. There is a special place in hell for the ACLU.
There is so much arguing over the meaning of individual amendments, rights and freedoms, that we have lost sight of the Constitution as a framework for the nation, Franks says. When we focus on one amendment and twist it into a meaning that pleases corporations, for example, there are knock-on effects to other amendments and rights. As we continue on this path, we lose perspective, and the whole thing is perverted into an unrecognizable shape.
This refreshing distancing and looking at it with a neutral perspective is what has been missing from the discussion all along. I have reviewed numerous books on constitutional issues, and they all start by taking the arguments as legitimate. Franks tosses them out. She puts them in societal perspective instead of legal status: “The belief in absolute rights – self-defense or otherwise – is incompatible with a commitment to the constitution,” she says.
“Misinformation campaigns, conspiracy theories and propaganda have poisoned public discourse and promoted scientific, political and cultural illiteracy,” she says. The internet is being used to discriminate against women, minorities and vulnerable groups in unprecedented ways. Claims by white male supremacists that their speech rights are being cut off on the internet becomes more pathetic whining in Park’s telling of it. It’s an upside down world that Franks rights.
David Wineberg
August 16, 2023
3.5 stars
This was a pretty fascinating read, though it has some drawbacks. Despite the incendiary title and cover, a good chunk of this book will be common sense to the average left-wing reader. But its value overall is more in the theory that it presents about the social and political role of the American Constitution.
The most interesting section actually came at the end, despite my initial disinterest in the sound of "The Cult of the Internet." There was actually a swath of internet-related legal theory that I had no idea about, and it's made me a lot more interested in the social justice issues involved in cyberlaw. While the rest of the book I valued for Franks's opinions, here I found it fascinating to just learn about all this work web corporations do behind the scenes to avoid regulations.
As someone whose studies have a more international focus, I would be really curious to expand her theories outward to how we view the American model of democracy and constitutionalism globally. I think there's a similar trend that has caused some problems, but it's a half-baked thought.
The writing style did bother me a bit. Franks repeats herself a lot, and at times waxes dramatic. This is particularly apparent in the sections on the ACLU; while I agreed with her overall points, she really goes out of her way to describe the ACLU as incredibly sinister and repeatedly equates them to the NRA. It just seems like sometimes the book focuses more on telling a story than on putting forth solid and grounded critiques.
Still, I found this a valuable read overall. I learned some things about constitutional law and history that I didn't know before. Even when I disagreed with Franks's opinions, they were still interesting to read, and this book definitely enriched my understanding of modern American politics.
Content Warnings: descriptions of sexual violence, hate crime, and mass shootings that can sometimes be pretty graphic (I guess to prove a point?)
This was a pretty fascinating read, though it has some drawbacks. Despite the incendiary title and cover, a good chunk of this book will be common sense to the average left-wing reader. But its value overall is more in the theory that it presents about the social and political role of the American Constitution.
The most interesting section actually came at the end, despite my initial disinterest in the sound of "The Cult of the Internet." There was actually a swath of internet-related legal theory that I had no idea about, and it's made me a lot more interested in the social justice issues involved in cyberlaw. While the rest of the book I valued for Franks's opinions, here I found it fascinating to just learn about all this work web corporations do behind the scenes to avoid regulations.
As someone whose studies have a more international focus, I would be really curious to expand her theories outward to how we view the American model of democracy and constitutionalism globally. I think there's a similar trend that has caused some problems, but it's a half-baked thought.
The writing style did bother me a bit. Franks repeats herself a lot, and at times waxes dramatic. This is particularly apparent in the sections on the ACLU; while I agreed with her overall points, she really goes out of her way to describe the ACLU as incredibly sinister and repeatedly equates them to the NRA. It just seems like sometimes the book focuses more on telling a story than on putting forth solid and grounded critiques.
Still, I found this a valuable read overall. I learned some things about constitutional law and history that I didn't know before. Even when I disagreed with Franks's opinions, they were still interesting to read, and this book definitely enriched my understanding of modern American politics.
Content Warnings: descriptions of sexual violence, hate crime, and mass shootings that can sometimes be pretty graphic (I guess to prove a point?)
"The adherents of the cult of the Constitution would have us believe that 'we' are facing an unprecedented erosion of our constitutional rights and that can only be countered with more of everything: guns, speech, Internet. But we are not facing a sudden crisis of constitutional scarcity. We are facing a continuing crisis of constitutional inequality... "
August 20, 2019
The thesis, as best I can tell, is that some organizations and people behave in a cult-like fashion toward certain parts of the Constitution (but not others). We worship the First and Second Amendments, but don’t pay nearly enough attention to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th. I have some sympathy for this view, but the author clearly has an ax to grind, and it shows. The ACLU opposed her bill to criminalize revenge porn, and she spends a third of the book hammering the ACLU. The most compelling part of the book for me is the introduction, which describes the actions of the ACLU of Virginia during 2017 in Charlottesville. There are many valuable books on constitutional law; this is not one of them.
September 22, 2022
[22 Sep 2022]
This is the second book I've read recently about people interpreting the constitution too strictly. Both suffered from an excess of emotion.
I had trouble finishing this book, even though it's quite short. And that's unfortunate because I agree with much of what the author says. Her main contention is that the constitution was written to support the power of white men, to the detriment of women and non-white men, and it is still largely interpreted that way.
However, the author's writing style really hurts her argument. For one thing, her anger and resentment are very obvious. Of course, I share that anger, but I'm not writing a book trying to convince other people to change their opinions. Also, the book is written in the style of a high school research report. Very long sentences, filled with dependent clauses. Lots of in-line and set-off quotes from people I've never heard of, with no explanation of why I should care what they say. Very dry and pedantic. I don't believe that it's necessary to be boring when writing about the law but, even though she is passionate, she is tedious.
I'm afraid I can't really recommend this book.
This is the second book I've read recently about people interpreting the constitution too strictly. Both suffered from an excess of emotion.
I had trouble finishing this book, even though it's quite short. And that's unfortunate because I agree with much of what the author says. Her main contention is that the constitution was written to support the power of white men, to the detriment of women and non-white men, and it is still largely interpreted that way.
However, the author's writing style really hurts her argument. For one thing, her anger and resentment are very obvious. Of course, I share that anger, but I'm not writing a book trying to convince other people to change their opinions. Also, the book is written in the style of a high school research report. Very long sentences, filled with dependent clauses. Lots of in-line and set-off quotes from people I've never heard of, with no explanation of why I should care what they say. Very dry and pedantic. I don't believe that it's necessary to be boring when writing about the law but, even though she is passionate, she is tedious.
I'm afraid I can't really recommend this book.
April 13, 2020
Franks provides a decent amount of historical context for the Constitution and it’s failings in accounting for rights for those seen as less than people by the writers of it. The information on the money and history behind the NRA and ACLU and the development of those organizations and their advocacy overtime is fascinating.
What I found lacking was her arguments for how the positions she advocates for under the guise of rejecting Constitutional fundamentalism wouldn’t be used to harm marginalized communities. She fails to engage in any meaningful way with the reality that precisely because the government and law are opposed to marginalized communities, any laws meant to mitigate the harm of something like speech will invariably be used and used far harsher against marginalized communities. She dismisses the attempts to classify Black Lives Matter as a hate group by saying the law can easily distinguish between the speech of people like neo-nazis and BLM because of impact and attempt, but doesn’t explicitly address how or acknowledge the surveillance of black activists.
An area where Franks provides some compelling arguments is in treating digital platforms such as Facebook and Twitter as distributors of speech and holding them criminally and civilly liable accordingly. Unfortunately, Franks still doesn’t provide strong arguments against the possibility of chilling effects on speech that disproportionately target minorities aside from saying the platforms should be more mindful in their algorithms.
What I found lacking was her arguments for how the positions she advocates for under the guise of rejecting Constitutional fundamentalism wouldn’t be used to harm marginalized communities. She fails to engage in any meaningful way with the reality that precisely because the government and law are opposed to marginalized communities, any laws meant to mitigate the harm of something like speech will invariably be used and used far harsher against marginalized communities. She dismisses the attempts to classify Black Lives Matter as a hate group by saying the law can easily distinguish between the speech of people like neo-nazis and BLM because of impact and attempt, but doesn’t explicitly address how or acknowledge the surveillance of black activists.
An area where Franks provides some compelling arguments is in treating digital platforms such as Facebook and Twitter as distributors of speech and holding them criminally and civilly liable accordingly. Unfortunately, Franks still doesn’t provide strong arguments against the possibility of chilling effects on speech that disproportionately target minorities aside from saying the platforms should be more mindful in their algorithms.
August 6, 2022
Before reading this book, I would probably have been considered what Franks calls a "First Amendment fundamentalist," long subscribing to the belief in the free marketplace of ideas—that the remedy for "bad speech" is simply "more speech." Chapter Two challenged me to consider the First Amendment right to speech from a new angle, and I am glad that it did. Her analysis of First Amendment fundamentalism flowed nicely into her discussion of the regulation (or rather, the lack thereof) of speech on the Internet, an issue that has troubled me for quite some time.
Deducted one star because it's a bit wordy and sometimes repetitive—some of Franks's arguments could have been more compelling if they were more concise.
Deducted one star because it's a bit wordy and sometimes repetitive—some of Franks's arguments could have been more compelling if they were more concise.
August 6, 2019
Loved this book. Really enjoyed the historical legal scholarship as well as the explication of constitutional theories to second amendment, first amendment and the internet (section 230 of the CDA in particular). Incisive, direct, thoughtful and well argued..... will likely read again. I listened to the audio book which was convenient and fine but I would say definitely order a copy of this for your library because there are so many statistics to review and arguments to reread. Great book to own ..... and to buy for your friends interested in con law.
June 22, 2025
This is primarily about free speech and to a lesser degree about other aspects of the US Constitution. I'm a recovering attorney and I hold most of these views as well. Free speech has historically been limited by things such as: safety (no yelling fire in a crowded theater), reasonableness (school speech is limited), and truth (libel laws). Unlimited speech doesn't aid but hinders democracy. I'm especially an advocate for limiting hate speech as speech that dehumanizes groups always always always leads to murder.
September 19, 2022
Mary Anne Franks is awesome. I love that she's unafraid to call out the cult-like following of the constitution in America from those in positions of power and privilege. I found it fascinating that rather than coming from one side of the political spectrum, the cult following of the First Amendment exists on both the political left and right, and has helped transform free speech doctrine from a shield that should be protecting the most vulnerable, to a sword wielded by the most privileged and powerful members of society. The convergence of these constitutionalist views has deepened existing inequalities in the free speech and other constitutional rights of women and racial minorities.
I found Chapter 4 which discussed speech over the internet fascinating. I liked that Franks highlights the difficulty faced in criminalizing non-consensual sexual images and videos on the internet— the First Amendment, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and lack of narrow legislation pertaining to the criminalization of non-consensual sexual images and videos make it difficult to hold harassers accountable. Existing criminal laws for harassment and stalking only apply to defendants who engage in repeated harassing acts. Franks points out that another reason it is not easy to criminalize non-consensual pornography is because some state harassment laws only apply to persistent abuse communicated directly to victims.
It's upsetting that revenge porn posted on third party sites is not banned under harassment statutes that require direct contact with victims. It's even more upsetting that when revenge porn does fit the definition of criminal harassment, police may decline to get involved because victims are often blamed and told that the behavior is not serious enough for an in-depth investigation. Although the intent behind Sec. 230 was good, I agree with Franks that it is not good for America as it is currently written because existing structures ignore harmful online acts and the fact that freedom of speech has never actually been free for all people— including women and minorities. Section 230 does not protect women, racial minorities, and sexual minorities because it does not protect from silencing, death threats, and revenge porn. It currently makes it harder for these minority groups that really need it to speak, despite the intention to promote free speech.
I found Chapter 4 which discussed speech over the internet fascinating. I liked that Franks highlights the difficulty faced in criminalizing non-consensual sexual images and videos on the internet— the First Amendment, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and lack of narrow legislation pertaining to the criminalization of non-consensual sexual images and videos make it difficult to hold harassers accountable. Existing criminal laws for harassment and stalking only apply to defendants who engage in repeated harassing acts. Franks points out that another reason it is not easy to criminalize non-consensual pornography is because some state harassment laws only apply to persistent abuse communicated directly to victims.
It's upsetting that revenge porn posted on third party sites is not banned under harassment statutes that require direct contact with victims. It's even more upsetting that when revenge porn does fit the definition of criminal harassment, police may decline to get involved because victims are often blamed and told that the behavior is not serious enough for an in-depth investigation. Although the intent behind Sec. 230 was good, I agree with Franks that it is not good for America as it is currently written because existing structures ignore harmful online acts and the fact that freedom of speech has never actually been free for all people— including women and minorities. Section 230 does not protect women, racial minorities, and sexual minorities because it does not protect from silencing, death threats, and revenge porn. It currently makes it harder for these minority groups that really need it to speak, despite the intention to promote free speech.
February 24, 2020
This is five stars for content but misses one because of some sloppy editing. I hate typos in books with such important material.
I've thought for some time that the Constitution just does not work anymore; the United States of 1787 bears no resemblance to the U.S. of 2020, and we ought to just toss it out and start over. There's precedent for this--South Africa revised its Constitution in 1996, creating a document that is remarkable in its scope and attention to justice. Franks acknowledges that a total rewrite is possible, but that the embedded flexibility of amendments gives us a way to attend to the need for fairness and protection for ALL, not just the white men who wrote it, in their own interests, and in whose interests the document continues to function.
I've thought for some time that the Constitution just does not work anymore; the United States of 1787 bears no resemblance to the U.S. of 2020, and we ought to just toss it out and start over. There's precedent for this--South Africa revised its Constitution in 1996, creating a document that is remarkable in its scope and attention to justice. Franks acknowledges that a total rewrite is possible, but that the embedded flexibility of amendments gives us a way to attend to the need for fairness and protection for ALL, not just the white men who wrote it, in their own interests, and in whose interests the document continues to function.
July 20, 2021
The 15% of the book that is fascinating historical, legal commentary is drowned by empty anti-white-men screed:
"White men have used their unlimited speech privileges to threaten and incite violence over any sign that the world is not perfectly shaped to their interests." (wrapping on Chapter 3, The Cult of Free Speech)
or
"In contrast to women and racial, sexual, and religious minorities, white men as a group are able to access the tremendous benefits of the Internet while being shielded from its harms." (wrapping up on Chapter 4, The Cult of the Internet)
I was unmoved on the free speech or internet arguments - color me a cultist on that.
My eyes were opened to the serious dissent in the 5-to-4 District of Columbia v Heller case.
"White men have used their unlimited speech privileges to threaten and incite violence over any sign that the world is not perfectly shaped to their interests." (wrapping on Chapter 3, The Cult of Free Speech)
or
"In contrast to women and racial, sexual, and religious minorities, white men as a group are able to access the tremendous benefits of the Internet while being shielded from its harms." (wrapping up on Chapter 4, The Cult of the Internet)
I was unmoved on the free speech or internet arguments - color me a cultist on that.
My eyes were opened to the serious dissent in the 5-to-4 District of Columbia v Heller case.
April 8, 2020
What's this talk about freedom? Franks is disgusted! The rule should be made by the current elite with no restrains. Eventually, someone will notice the loyalty exposed by Franks and give him a governmental job in addition to whatever bureaucratic tasks he has now, because Franks knows he deserves more money from your taxes.
September 5, 2024
“I’m divorced and I live in a van down by the river.” -Matt Foley (fictional character played by Chris Farley), SNL
These were the first thoughts that came to my mind when I read this review for this book by a fellow co-reader. Use an erudite tone when enunciating: “The thesis, as best as I can tell, is that some organizations and people behave in a cult like fashion toward certain parts of the Constitution (but not others). We worship the First and Second Amendments, but don’t pay nearly enough attention to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th. I have some sympathy for this view, but the author clearly has an ax to grind, and it shows. The ACLU opposed her bill to criminalize revenge porn, and she spends a third of the book hammering the ACLU.” And then there is this from the same reviewer: “There are many valuable books on constitutional law; this is not one of them.” To which he proffered his 2 star rating
“Hi, I still live with my parents in their basement. I’m the typical misogynistic man who doesn’t know how to relate to those of the opposite sex. I spend all day and night on my computer.”
I personally read this book to confirm this very callous and shallow reviewer’s worldview.
I did not find the author (Franks) repetitive ACLU criticisms in any other light than a confirmation of what I have been theorizing as of late: that the ACLU, in its effort to appear fair to all has lost touch with law and equality under the law and in a Constitution that should have the right to evolve and mature with the times.
The title struck me as well: labeling and referring to the Constitution in cult like terms and references. So many white nationalistic evangelical churches today reference the Constitution as a confirmation and indisputable resource to their infallible source to the True Church and interpretation of the scriptures. Their references to the flag and the Constitution is a form of bonafide. There is one leader of my Church who has what I can only label a big hangup about freedom of religion and then there are several acolytes who parrot his cries of Constitutional malfeasance. It seems to be an effort to prove their relevance as leaders of my Church.
A great read for anyone who fears the mingling of religion with the Constitution and government that many observe today.
These were the first thoughts that came to my mind when I read this review for this book by a fellow co-reader. Use an erudite tone when enunciating: “The thesis, as best as I can tell, is that some organizations and people behave in a cult like fashion toward certain parts of the Constitution (but not others). We worship the First and Second Amendments, but don’t pay nearly enough attention to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th. I have some sympathy for this view, but the author clearly has an ax to grind, and it shows. The ACLU opposed her bill to criminalize revenge porn, and she spends a third of the book hammering the ACLU.” And then there is this from the same reviewer: “There are many valuable books on constitutional law; this is not one of them.” To which he proffered his 2 star rating
“Hi, I still live with my parents in their basement. I’m the typical misogynistic man who doesn’t know how to relate to those of the opposite sex. I spend all day and night on my computer.”
I personally read this book to confirm this very callous and shallow reviewer’s worldview.
I did not find the author (Franks) repetitive ACLU criticisms in any other light than a confirmation of what I have been theorizing as of late: that the ACLU, in its effort to appear fair to all has lost touch with law and equality under the law and in a Constitution that should have the right to evolve and mature with the times.
The title struck me as well: labeling and referring to the Constitution in cult like terms and references. So many white nationalistic evangelical churches today reference the Constitution as a confirmation and indisputable resource to their infallible source to the True Church and interpretation of the scriptures. Their references to the flag and the Constitution is a form of bonafide. There is one leader of my Church who has what I can only label a big hangup about freedom of religion and then there are several acolytes who parrot his cries of Constitutional malfeasance. It seems to be an effort to prove their relevance as leaders of my Church.
A great read for anyone who fears the mingling of religion with the Constitution and government that many observe today.
October 6, 2025
Timely, necessary, and relevant as hell! This book centers around free speech and how it’s always been limited in this country or only applicable to white men. The author argues that tech companies have as much power as the government and have played a big role in allowing hate speech in their online communities for profit. I like how she also mentions ACLU’s silence in all this. Or not silence but criticism when online platforms or groups of people (white men with guns) have suffered consequences for their actions. I had no idea ACLU was just like the others 🥲 loved it! I wish she had spent more time on women of color though. Putting all women under one umbrella is a bit meh.
February 17, 2020
A tremendous look at the original sins of our constitution and takes an honest look at the history and how the constitution benefits white makes and current debates center around town that group is strenously trying to hold into the original meaning and protection and power of white males.
August 11, 2021
My full review of this engaging book should appear shortly at https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/.c/...
June 8, 2023
2.5. read part of this for class and decided to finish it. good things first: Franks does a decent takedown of the founders and the constitution at writing for being intentionally, flagrantly racist and sexist, as she should. she also shows how the 1st and 2nd amendments have been expanded to absurd proportions by the ACLU, NRA, and others in ways that privilege racist & sexist violence through harassment, intimate partner gun violence, revenge porn, and more.
Franks' highlighting of how corporations have funded and shaped the NRA & the ACLU is also compelling, as these huge industries (gun and ammo, tobacco, internet, etc) have now secured themselves rights that had previously been interpreted as protecting human people. accordingly, these industries get to profit massively off racialized / classed / gendered violence with basically no fear of legal liability.
while i learned many things, Franks' analysis fell short in many ways. first, her race and gender analysis is generally clunky, never discussing how race/racism and gender/sexism impact each other. despite invoking Kimberlé Crenshaw, she doesn't attend to the specificities of anti-Black, misogynoiristic, and anti-Indigenous structures, often subsuming them under the generalized plight of "women and nonwhite men." in fact, she doesn't really mention Native people or settler colonialism at all, a pretty glaring oversight when analyzing the founding period and the constitution.
second, Franks strangely shies away from criticizing the constitution itself and instead asserts that the law can be used to correct itself. the main thing she uses to back this up is that the 14th amendment demands "equal protection of the laws," which she approximates as being basically the same as the "Golden Rule" and Immanuel Kant's "categorical imperative" lol. under this logic, the constitution says there should be equality, so if we focus more on that right and reign in these other ones, racism and sexism can be eliminated. that sounds good but if Franks reads Cheryl I. Harris' "Whiteness as Property," (https://harvardlawreview.org/print/no...) she would see how the 14th amendment itself is used to strike down affirmative action and anti-racist efforts like it.
this legal view of equality is an individualistic, liberal one that seeks to simply treat people the same, and can't account for the different contexts, social positions, and histories of oppressed communities. that means there are limitations to using litigation to achieve actual material equality & justice. but this is written by a lawyer so what can u expect. shrug
Franks' highlighting of how corporations have funded and shaped the NRA & the ACLU is also compelling, as these huge industries (gun and ammo, tobacco, internet, etc) have now secured themselves rights that had previously been interpreted as protecting human people. accordingly, these industries get to profit massively off racialized / classed / gendered violence with basically no fear of legal liability.
while i learned many things, Franks' analysis fell short in many ways. first, her race and gender analysis is generally clunky, never discussing how race/racism and gender/sexism impact each other. despite invoking Kimberlé Crenshaw, she doesn't attend to the specificities of anti-Black, misogynoiristic, and anti-Indigenous structures, often subsuming them under the generalized plight of "women and nonwhite men." in fact, she doesn't really mention Native people or settler colonialism at all, a pretty glaring oversight when analyzing the founding period and the constitution.
second, Franks strangely shies away from criticizing the constitution itself and instead asserts that the law can be used to correct itself. the main thing she uses to back this up is that the 14th amendment demands "equal protection of the laws," which she approximates as being basically the same as the "Golden Rule" and Immanuel Kant's "categorical imperative" lol. under this logic, the constitution says there should be equality, so if we focus more on that right and reign in these other ones, racism and sexism can be eliminated. that sounds good but if Franks reads Cheryl I. Harris' "Whiteness as Property," (https://harvardlawreview.org/print/no...) she would see how the 14th amendment itself is used to strike down affirmative action and anti-racist efforts like it.
this legal view of equality is an individualistic, liberal one that seeks to simply treat people the same, and can't account for the different contexts, social positions, and histories of oppressed communities. that means there are limitations to using litigation to achieve actual material equality & justice. but this is written by a lawyer so what can u expect. shrug
February 17, 2023
The Cult of the Constitution explores the link Americans have built bridging the concept of freedom with the constitution.
The book focuses on the first and second amendments, and the odd fanaticism that risen around them over the past few decades. It does an admirable job of taking on the NRA and the ACLU, and it effectively presents the dangers and biases of stand your ground laws and the lack of internet safeguards for vulnerable communities. But somehow the book still feels incomplete—almost superficial. At the end of reading this book one word unfortunately came to mind above all others: And?
The book focuses on the first and second amendments, and the odd fanaticism that risen around them over the past few decades. It does an admirable job of taking on the NRA and the ACLU, and it effectively presents the dangers and biases of stand your ground laws and the lack of internet safeguards for vulnerable communities. But somehow the book still feels incomplete—almost superficial. At the end of reading this book one word unfortunately came to mind above all others: And?
November 19, 2022
This book summarises many cultural and legal phenomena that I had realised about the United States over the years. The US constitution was written by white males for white males. White male supremacy is embedded into the legal system and extremists use that to their advantage. They claim victimhood even though they have never been oppressed but rather have held nearly all political power since inception. The courts perform mental gymnastics to sympathise with white males at the expense of everybody else.
April 12, 2021
This is more of a legal studies book than an in-depth legal analysis (which is perfectly fine, just not what I was expecting). I thought her most interesting points were about revenge porn and internet regulation, so I actually wish those sections had been longer and more detailed.
January 16, 2023
interesting and well written. a lot of the book is discussing a lot of the right wing agenda that has been well documented in plenty of other books, but i certainly learned some new and disturbing things about the aclu.
October 3, 2019
Absolute fire. This book brings together many important threads of our current sociopolitical discourse with extreme clarity and humanity.
April 30, 2021
I really wanted to like this book, but it just doesn't get there.
June 14, 2021
Very thought provoking book.
October 5, 2025
This is the essence of the author’s thesis in this book: “The Cult of the Constitution reveals how deep fundamentalist strains in both conservative and liberal American thought keep the Constitution in the service of white male supremacy.”
In her doctoral thesis at Oxford University, the Author – Mary Anne Franks – weaves a complex Marxist analysis around her obsession with violent porn. She carries that obsession with her in writing this book. Ironically, she views views violent porn as an instrument of "white male supremacy" while women are the majority of consumers of violent porn. Aggression in Pornography: Myths and Realities
Ms. Franks sees the First Amendment to the Constitution as a tool to completely suppress pornography's role in male sexuality, yet liberate women's use of pornography with no boundaries and restrictions. This type of authoritarian suppression of men and glorification of women is common among women authors who hate men.
Although the book only tangentially touches on the subject of violent pornography, Ms. Franks sexualizes constitutional issues to project her perversions and degeneracy on to “white” men.
As an example, Ms. Franks describes the Second Amendment as a “conservative fetish.” She seems incapable of thinking about anything other than sex. Her poor education at Oxford, which is saturated with bizarre Neo-Marxism, leads her to see sex in everything and disregard any other considerations. Though she boasts that she is a "serious scholar," and she has, in fact studied at universities that are bastions of Bolshevism and Marxism, she is not a scholar in any sense. Her entire mindset involves only women supremacy and Bolshevik dogma on the subject of women's supremacy.
Her analysis is almost completely devoid of legal analysis. It is difficult to believe that she graduated from a law school. Her analysis is confined to Marxist / Bolshevik dogma, not legal scholarship. For example, she wants to disarm men because they are a danger to women and children. This type of sexism saturates her diatribe. Women are by far the majority of perpetrators of domestic violence. Women Who Perpetrate Relationship Violence: Moving Beyond Political Correctness Ms. Franks, however, completely omits women's prominent violence against men in her polemic tirades.
Though she does not cite the Frankfurt School directly in her diatribes against men, it is quite obvious that her instructors were well-versed in the perversions and degeneracy of the Frankfurt School Marxists. In particular, her myopic views justifying her hatred of men are almost a duplicate of the women's supremacy advanced by Herbert Marcuse in his book: "Eros & Civilization." Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud Marcuse was a master demagogue, and having never done anything in his life more challenging than admiring himself in the mirror, he had no knowledge or understanding of deep human struggles throughout history and the need for the common person to have a right to defend themselves against aggressors and tyranny. Such tyranny would have included the Bolsheviks, the communists who conducted violence in the Weimar Republic, and the extensive riots in US cities in the early 1970's. The Frankfurt School Marxists provided specious and vile justifications for the leftist violence of the 1970's. Ms. Franks promises to continue those traditions of Marxism and Bolshevism in her pursuit of authoritarian aggression towards men.
The roots of the second Amendment are in Aristotle’s Politika (not pornography as Ms. Franks asserts) and span thousands of years of political learning as a fundamental bedrock of civilization. (Aristotle, POLITICS, Book 3, ch VII). Ms. Franks seems to think that her sexual arousal over seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger with weapons in films seems to, somehow, diminish the role of weapons for survival and self-defense as a necessary and primal human right. (Over 2,000 men, each year in the United States are forced to kill their wives in self-defense. "Battered Men.” Linda Kelly, Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Violence: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State, 30 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 806 (2003)). Women kill 3,000 husbands each year and their favorite weapons are bludgeons, poison and arson,*(and frequently firearms) ."Relative Influence of Various Forms of Partner Violence on the Health of Male Victims.” Hines, Denise, Douglas, Emily M.Study of a Help Seeking Example (2015),
Notwithstanding her Oxford education in fantasy Marxism, Ms. Franks seems oblivious to the great minds that have formed and defined human consciousness. If you think “fantasy Marxism” is a harsh term for Ms. Franks’ education, I invite you to read her doctoral thesis: Franks, Mary Anne “ENJOYING WOMEN: SEX, PSYCHOANALYSIS, AND THE POLITICAL” (DOCTORAL DISSERTATION, OXFORD UNIVERSITY, 2003).
Ms. Franks doctoral thesis reads like someone who condemns pornography because she can't stop watching it. One must wonder why she is so obsessed with pornography that she cannot think or write about anything else.
Ms. Franks is terribly afraid of white men. Psychiatrists term this "androphobia"Her fears arise from her hatred of white men. If she were to stop hating white men, she would no longer be afraid of white men. However, she is caught up in the vicious circle of hating white men because she is afraid of them (with her fear providing her with her excuses to hate them). This comes out in her book.
She, for example, defends abortion because not giving women the right to slaughter unborn babies somehow kills women. With advancements in medicine, the statistics show that an abortion is never needed to save the life of a pregnant woman. Terminal pregnancies such as ectopic pregnancies are not abortions when the physician terminates the pregnancy. Nevertheless, Ms. Franks weaves an entire fantasy around the notion that banning the slaughter of unborn babies, somehow kills women. Women slaughter 45 million unborn children every year in abortion violence with no regard to the child or the Father of the child and yet Ms. Franks protests "white male supremacy" with no mention of the genocide of unborn children that women perpetrate.
With little cleverness, Ms. Franks then moves on to criticize the Supreme Court’s validation of the timeless Second Amendment as a “death pact” within the Supreme Court’s “white male supremacy.” Since white men are allowed to defend themselves against violent women with firearms (or other means), Ms. Franks "reasons" that civilization may not prevent her and her gender of slaughtering unlimited unborn babies. Her invocation of her hate doctrine against “white men” does little to enlighten any reader except to the extent it illuminates her rabid, obsessive hatred of men.
In one of her papers "Men, Women, and Optimal Violence" she openly advocates women's violence against men. Franks, Mary Anne, "Men, Women, and Optimal Violence," U. Miami L. School Repository (2016). Of course, the very essence of Marxism is to contrive excuses for hatred and aggression against another demographic. Franks not only advocates women's violence against men in her academic writings, she passively aggressively advocates for that violence against men in this book.
Ms. Franks is not a serious scholar. Ms. Franks is a petty Marxist provocateur abstracting appearances of victimhood out of context and using it to justify her hatred of white men, and her hatred of all things considered intelligent thought by people who think intelligently in the Aristotelean tradition.
In her doctoral thesis at Oxford University, the Author – Mary Anne Franks – weaves a complex Marxist analysis around her obsession with violent porn. She carries that obsession with her in writing this book. Ironically, she views views violent porn as an instrument of "white male supremacy" while women are the majority of consumers of violent porn. Aggression in Pornography: Myths and Realities
Ms. Franks sees the First Amendment to the Constitution as a tool to completely suppress pornography's role in male sexuality, yet liberate women's use of pornography with no boundaries and restrictions. This type of authoritarian suppression of men and glorification of women is common among women authors who hate men.
Although the book only tangentially touches on the subject of violent pornography, Ms. Franks sexualizes constitutional issues to project her perversions and degeneracy on to “white” men.
As an example, Ms. Franks describes the Second Amendment as a “conservative fetish.” She seems incapable of thinking about anything other than sex. Her poor education at Oxford, which is saturated with bizarre Neo-Marxism, leads her to see sex in everything and disregard any other considerations. Though she boasts that she is a "serious scholar," and she has, in fact studied at universities that are bastions of Bolshevism and Marxism, she is not a scholar in any sense. Her entire mindset involves only women supremacy and Bolshevik dogma on the subject of women's supremacy.
Her analysis is almost completely devoid of legal analysis. It is difficult to believe that she graduated from a law school. Her analysis is confined to Marxist / Bolshevik dogma, not legal scholarship. For example, she wants to disarm men because they are a danger to women and children. This type of sexism saturates her diatribe. Women are by far the majority of perpetrators of domestic violence. Women Who Perpetrate Relationship Violence: Moving Beyond Political Correctness Ms. Franks, however, completely omits women's prominent violence against men in her polemic tirades.
Though she does not cite the Frankfurt School directly in her diatribes against men, it is quite obvious that her instructors were well-versed in the perversions and degeneracy of the Frankfurt School Marxists. In particular, her myopic views justifying her hatred of men are almost a duplicate of the women's supremacy advanced by Herbert Marcuse in his book: "Eros & Civilization." Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud Marcuse was a master demagogue, and having never done anything in his life more challenging than admiring himself in the mirror, he had no knowledge or understanding of deep human struggles throughout history and the need for the common person to have a right to defend themselves against aggressors and tyranny. Such tyranny would have included the Bolsheviks, the communists who conducted violence in the Weimar Republic, and the extensive riots in US cities in the early 1970's. The Frankfurt School Marxists provided specious and vile justifications for the leftist violence of the 1970's. Ms. Franks promises to continue those traditions of Marxism and Bolshevism in her pursuit of authoritarian aggression towards men.
The roots of the second Amendment are in Aristotle’s Politika (not pornography as Ms. Franks asserts) and span thousands of years of political learning as a fundamental bedrock of civilization. (Aristotle, POLITICS, Book 3, ch VII). Ms. Franks seems to think that her sexual arousal over seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger with weapons in films seems to, somehow, diminish the role of weapons for survival and self-defense as a necessary and primal human right. (Over 2,000 men, each year in the United States are forced to kill their wives in self-defense. "Battered Men.” Linda Kelly, Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Violence: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State, 30 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 806 (2003)). Women kill 3,000 husbands each year and their favorite weapons are bludgeons, poison and arson,*(and frequently firearms) ."Relative Influence of Various Forms of Partner Violence on the Health of Male Victims.” Hines, Denise, Douglas, Emily M.Study of a Help Seeking Example (2015),
Notwithstanding her Oxford education in fantasy Marxism, Ms. Franks seems oblivious to the great minds that have formed and defined human consciousness. If you think “fantasy Marxism” is a harsh term for Ms. Franks’ education, I invite you to read her doctoral thesis: Franks, Mary Anne “ENJOYING WOMEN: SEX, PSYCHOANALYSIS, AND THE POLITICAL” (DOCTORAL DISSERTATION, OXFORD UNIVERSITY, 2003).
Ms. Franks doctoral thesis reads like someone who condemns pornography because she can't stop watching it. One must wonder why she is so obsessed with pornography that she cannot think or write about anything else.
Ms. Franks is terribly afraid of white men. Psychiatrists term this "androphobia"Her fears arise from her hatred of white men. If she were to stop hating white men, she would no longer be afraid of white men. However, she is caught up in the vicious circle of hating white men because she is afraid of them (with her fear providing her with her excuses to hate them). This comes out in her book.
She, for example, defends abortion because not giving women the right to slaughter unborn babies somehow kills women. With advancements in medicine, the statistics show that an abortion is never needed to save the life of a pregnant woman. Terminal pregnancies such as ectopic pregnancies are not abortions when the physician terminates the pregnancy. Nevertheless, Ms. Franks weaves an entire fantasy around the notion that banning the slaughter of unborn babies, somehow kills women. Women slaughter 45 million unborn children every year in abortion violence with no regard to the child or the Father of the child and yet Ms. Franks protests "white male supremacy" with no mention of the genocide of unborn children that women perpetrate.
With little cleverness, Ms. Franks then moves on to criticize the Supreme Court’s validation of the timeless Second Amendment as a “death pact” within the Supreme Court’s “white male supremacy.” Since white men are allowed to defend themselves against violent women with firearms (or other means), Ms. Franks "reasons" that civilization may not prevent her and her gender of slaughtering unlimited unborn babies. Her invocation of her hate doctrine against “white men” does little to enlighten any reader except to the extent it illuminates her rabid, obsessive hatred of men.
In one of her papers "Men, Women, and Optimal Violence" she openly advocates women's violence against men. Franks, Mary Anne, "Men, Women, and Optimal Violence," U. Miami L. School Repository (2016). Of course, the very essence of Marxism is to contrive excuses for hatred and aggression against another demographic. Franks not only advocates women's violence against men in her academic writings, she passively aggressively advocates for that violence against men in this book.
Ms. Franks is not a serious scholar. Ms. Franks is a petty Marxist provocateur abstracting appearances of victimhood out of context and using it to justify her hatred of white men, and her hatred of all things considered intelligent thought by people who think intelligently in the Aristotelean tradition.
April 19, 2024
I almost didn't read this as the introduction was so ineffective in grabbing my interest. I am glad I soldiered on. Something in the preface did grab me, as she referred to two building blocks of my personal philosophy: the principle of reciprocity of The Golden Rule and Kant's categorical imperative.
I was right with the author for identifying the cultish interpretation of The Second Amendment with Moloch for the way our society effectively sacrifices children to the worship of this gun fetish. Just like "more guns" is that sect's mantra the author balances this attack on the right (as it may be viewed), with attacks on absolutist "more speech" evangelism from the left. Under attack are the formalism of the ACLU for defending Nazis, etc., and the techno-libertarian protection of the most vile uses of the internet in Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
The author also effectively dismantles the support for an orginalist approach to the Constitution. During its ratification, George Washington acknowledged the inevitable flaws. He remarked that the document was "not free from imperfections... I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
You can support my reviews with purchases made on Amazon through this link.
I was moved to write this book because I believe that good faith can conquer bad. I believe that good faith in the Constitution, in particular, is both possible and necessary. I wrote this book to make the case against fundamentalism and for the principle of reciprocity expressed in Christianity's Golden Rule, Kant's categorical imperative, and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. I wrote this book to advocate for the position that the only rights any of us should have are the rights that all of us should have. If only some of us are saved, all of us are lost.
I was right with the author for identifying the cultish interpretation of The Second Amendment with Moloch for the way our society effectively sacrifices children to the worship of this gun fetish. Just like "more guns" is that sect's mantra the author balances this attack on the right (as it may be viewed), with attacks on absolutist "more speech" evangelism from the left. Under attack are the formalism of the ACLU for defending Nazis, etc., and the techno-libertarian protection of the most vile uses of the internet in Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
The author also effectively dismantles the support for an orginalist approach to the Constitution. During its ratification, George Washington acknowledged the inevitable flaws. He remarked that the document was "not free from imperfections... I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."
You can support my reviews with purchases made on Amazon through this link.
October 9, 2023
The title is misleading; a more appropriate title would be:
_The USA: Women and Non-Whites Need Not Apply_
The book is disturbing, but I agree with it 100%. It does do some comparing the US Constitution to the Bible of fundamentalists, but really it emphasizes the lack of equality and stated in the Declaration of Independence with the actuality of our nation. It points out how far we have always been from our stated goal and dream. And even those who claim to try to fix it, come far from the point.
I think that it is up to ALL of us to continue to work to remedy this situation!
Good book, but it opens a lot in the realm of advancement.
_The USA: Women and Non-Whites Need Not Apply_
The book is disturbing, but I agree with it 100%. It does do some comparing the US Constitution to the Bible of fundamentalists, but really it emphasizes the lack of equality and stated in the Declaration of Independence with the actuality of our nation. It points out how far we have always been from our stated goal and dream. And even those who claim to try to fix it, come far from the point.
I think that it is up to ALL of us to continue to work to remedy this situation!
Good book, but it opens a lot in the realm of advancement.
September 22, 2023
The thing is, this book has some good content. I listened to the audiobook and had trouble zoning out in areas that felt incredibly repetitive. Sometimes it felt like she was saying the same thing for pages and pages in slightly paraphrased ways. When she wasn't repeating herself, it held my attention well. But there were too many instances where I just couldn't tell whether or not she'd just said the exact same thing twice. Still probably with a read
October 25, 2021
A family friend recommended this book to me over the summer and I finally got to reading it (ok, I listened to it as an audiobook). My mind was kind of blown away by some of what it discussed, specifically regarding the ACLU. I don’t know what to think about that. I’ll probably buy the book, read it again… eventually. I also think I need to read the constitution now.
May 25, 2024
Interesting: compare and contrast the NRA and the ACLU as two "fundamentalist" groups when it comes to the Second and First Amendments respectively.
Why I stopped reading: started to feel a bit repetitive, needed a fact-check here and there (for example, Harry Reid represented Nevada, not Arizona).
Why I stopped reading: started to feel a bit repetitive, needed a fact-check here and there (for example, Harry Reid represented Nevada, not Arizona).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews