John Paul Stevens, a retired Supreme Court Justice, thinks the Constitution is flawed, and that the current court is the reason. link to story
Quote
WASHINGTON � In his new book, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, two of which are directly related to guns. Others would abolish the death penalty, make it easier to limit spending on elections and rein in partisan drawing of electoral districts.
His proposed amendments generally would overrule major Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, including ones on guns and campaign finance in which he dissented. It's his second book since retiring from the court at age 90.
The book, "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution," is being published Tuesday by Little, Brown and Co., two days after Stevens' 94th birthday.
Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December 2012 made him think about doing "whatever we could to prevent such a thing from happening again." Twenty first-graders and six educators were killed.
He said he was bothered by news reports about gaps in the federal government database for checking the background of prospective gun buyers. Those gaps exist because the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that states could not be forced to participate in the background check system. Stevens dissented from the court's 5-4 ruling in Printz v. United States.
One amendment would allow Congress to force state participation in gun checks, while a second would change the Second Amendment to permit gun control. Stevens was on the losing end of another 5-4 decision in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court declared for the first time that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.
He acknowledged that his proposed change would allow Congress to do something unthinkable in today's environment: ban gun ownership altogether.
"I'd think the chance of changing the Second Amendment is pretty remote," Stevens said. "The purpose is to cause further reflection over a period of time because it seems to me with ample time and ample reflection, people in the United States would come to the same conclusion that people in other countries have."
Justices often say that their dissenting opinions are written with the hope that today's dissent might attract a majority on some future court.
But Stevens has gone a step beyond by proposing the constitutional changes. Asked whether the book could in part be seen as "sour grapes," he readily agreed.
"To a certain extent, it's no doubt true, because I do think the court made some serious mistakes, as I did point out in my dissents," he said. "But I've been criticized for making speeches since I retired. Writing the book is not much different from continuing to speak about things I find interesting."
A recent example is the court's decision, again by a 5-4 vote, to strike down limits in federal law on the total contributions wealthy individuals can make to candidates for Congress and president, political parties and political action committees. Stevens said the decision follows from the 2010 ruling in Citizens United that lifted limits on political spending by corporations and labor unions. Again, he was in the dissent in another 5-4 ruling.
Those cases, he said, talk about the importance of public participation in the electoral process. But this month's decision on the overall limits is "not about electing your representative," Stevens said. "It's about financing the election of representatives of other people. It's about the influence of out-of-state voters on the election in your district. It sort of exposes a basic flaw in the recent cases."
Stevens marked his 94th birthday Sunday, still in excellent health, but lately feeling his age. Speaking to AP a few days before his birthday, he said, "It's going to come and pass. I'm not sure it's something to celebrate."
both him and harry reid are past their prime and usefulness to socity , let them be grandfathers and leave it at that, who else really wants them
There is not enough darkness in all the world to put out the light of even one small candle----Robert Alden . If it wern't entertaining, I wouldn't keep coming back.------the BigSky
"I'd think the chance of changing the Second Amendment is pretty remote," Stevens said.
Yup, yet he never learned to live with that, did he ?
Goofy old liberal POS.
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
If the objective is to stop gun crime, who can tell me how many crimes the current gun laws have stopped? We have said it before, and it is still true - only law abiding people follow laws. Seems awful stupid to have to say that, but it's true. All these hoops we have to jump thru, and crime GOES UP!!!! Gimme a break....
John Paul Stevens, a retired Supreme Court Justice, thinks the Constitution is flawed, and that the current court is the reason. link to story
Quote
WASHINGTON � In his new book, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for no fewer than six changes to the Constitution, two of which are directly related to guns. Others would abolish the death penalty, make it easier to limit spending on elections and rein in partisan drawing of electoral districts.
His proposed amendments generally would overrule major Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, including ones on guns and campaign finance in which he dissented. It's his second book since retiring from the court at age 90.
The book, "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution," is being published Tuesday by Little, Brown and Co., two days after Stevens' 94th birthday.
Stevens said in an interview with The Associated Press that the Newtown, Conn., shootings in December 2012 made him think about doing "whatever we could to prevent such a thing from happening again." Twenty first-graders and six educators were killed.
He said he was bothered by news reports about gaps in the federal government database for checking the background of prospective gun buyers. Those gaps exist because the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that states could not be forced to participate in the background check system. Stevens dissented from the court's 5-4 ruling in Printz v. United States.
One amendment would allow Congress to force state participation in gun checks, while a second would change the Second Amendment to permit gun control. Stevens was on the losing end of another 5-4 decision in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court declared for the first time that Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense.
He acknowledged that his proposed change would allow Congress to do something unthinkable in today's environment: ban gun ownership altogether.
"I'd think the chance of changing the Second Amendment is pretty remote," Stevens said. "The purpose is to cause further reflection over a period of time because it seems to me with ample time and ample reflection, people in the United States would come to the same conclusion that people in other countries have."
Justices often say that their dissenting opinions are written with the hope that today's dissent might attract a majority on some future court.
But Stevens has gone a step beyond by proposing the constitutional changes. Asked whether the book could in part be seen as "sour grapes," he readily agreed.
"To a certain extent, it's no doubt true, because I do think the court made some serious mistakes, as I did point out in my dissents," he said. "But I've been criticized for making speeches since I retired. Writing the book is not much different from continuing to speak about things I find interesting."
A recent example is the court's decision, again by a 5-4 vote, to strike down limits in federal law on the total contributions wealthy individuals can make to candidates for Congress and president, political parties and political action committees. Stevens said the decision follows from the 2010 ruling in Citizens United that lifted limits on political spending by corporations and labor unions. Again, he was in the dissent in another 5-4 ruling.
Those cases, he said, talk about the importance of public participation in the electoral process. But this month's decision on the overall limits is "not about electing your representative," Stevens said. "It's about financing the election of representatives of other people. It's about the influence of out-of-state voters on the election in your district. It sort of exposes a basic flaw in the recent cases."
Stevens marked his 94th birthday Sunday, still in excellent health, but lately feeling his age. Speaking to AP a few days before his birthday, he said, "It's going to come and pass. I'm not sure it's something to celebrate."
Changing the 2nd Amendment; hell no!!! Unless you're making it more crystal clear on the "shall not infringe" part.
Changing the Constitution to fix the HUGE mistake they made with Citizens United and McCutcheon; yeah, I'd support that in concept, but I'd want to see the details.
What Stevens is admitting, then, is that his opinions on the cases he critiques were not based upon the Constitution as it is but upon what he would want it to be.
That admission shows a willful violation of his sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution and to judge cases upon their merits under the Constitution.
We can thank Nixon and Ford for that azzhole.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
Fine and bright analytic light to shine on the ungrateful, dreamy old bastid.
Hoping you'll expand on the core eval. and PUBLISH (or at least post) an essay on his veracity.
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
What Stevens is admitting, then, is that his opinions on the cases he critiques were not based upon the Constitution as it is but upon what he would want it to be.
That admission shows a willful violation of his sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution and to judge cases upon their merits under the Constitution.
We can thank Nixon and Ford for that azzhole.
While Stevens is far from my favorite (okay, I got no use for the guy). These days, strict constitutionalism is a very difficult thing to adhere to in SCOTUS because very few cases that go to SCOTUS are strictly constitutional. SCOTUS has been forced to review and weigh in on cases where lawmakers refuse to do their freaking jobs. Think about the Citizens United case; yeah it's free speech, but it's free speech of a corporation! Our constitution and Bill of Rights was never intended to be for corporations. But congress refused to clearly define limits on corporations, and cases end up being in SCOTUS because NO ONE will do the right thing. This situation seriously sucks. Why do we keep voting these worthless aholes in?
This is an interview with Justice Stevens that aired last night on public broadcast.
His view concerning the second amendment begins slightly after the seven minute mark.He still insists the term "militia" refers to a government entity controlled by the state and not every able body man,as I believe our Founders intended.
Communist Goals
26. Present homosexuality and degeneracy as normal. 27. Discredit the Bible. 28. Eliminate prayer in the schools.
Stevens was the one that would often refer to international law, not Constitutional law. Not much worse than him. I think it possible that he was replaced by someone slightly to the right because he was so far to the left.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
...He still insists the term "militia" refers to a government entity controlled by the state and not every able body man,as I believe our Founders intended.
What's funny...That definition doesn't even apply today. A militia by definition is a citizen fighting force. It is not the reserves as we see them today no matter what anyone says. When our "reserve" units engage in combat, has anyone EVER seen a reference to them being referred to as "militia?" I'll tell you this, anyone opposing them sure the hell don't feel like they're facing militia.
Think about the Citizens United case; yeah it's free speech, but it's free speech of a corporation! Our constitution and Bill of Rights was never intended to be for corporations.
A corporation is nothing other than a group of human beings. It�s illogical and immoral to suggest that they have free speech individually but not corporately. What you are suggesting is that people may not agree on something and issue a joint statement. That�s absurd and it�s a control on speech.
Think about the Citizens United case; yeah it's free speech, but it's free speech of a corporation! Our constitution and Bill of Rights was never intended to be for corporations.
A corporation is nothing other than a group of human beings. It�s illogical and immoral to suggest that they have free speech individually but not corporately. What you are suggesting is that people may not agree on something and issue a joint statement. That�s absurd and it�s a control on speech.
Well, we just disagree; sorry. When corporations have no restraint in the exercise of free speech in relation to the political process, then they OWN the political process. I want corporations to have a good part in the process, but I don't want them, or ANYONE ELSE owning it.