Posted on 04/21/2014 4:09:49 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in his new book, recommends six rewrites to the U.S. Constitution. He would restrict gun ownership to militia members; ban the death penalty; and allow government to set "reasonable limits" on campaign financing, among other things.
But Stevens says he's no radical:
"I think every one of my proposals is a moderate proposal," Stevens told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
One of Steven's proposals would add five words to the Second Amendment, which would then read: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, when serving in the militia, shall not be infringed." ...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
But thats really for us to decide, Justice Stevens.
I happen to view every single opinion I have as moderate and reasonable too.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevenswas and Remains a LibTurd.
Dumbo Gerry Ford made Stevens his Court pick over the strong objections of conservatives - look what we got and remember what a lousy president Ford made. JFK at least put Byron White, a moderately conservative, on the Court.
Request denied.
First class azzhole!
Why do the elites want to take away the right to keep and bear arms? Makes you wonder what they want to do once the people have no arms!
Hey, JP, how about we revisit the notion that the SCOTUS can overrule the other co-equal branches of government?
Collectivists need to be cut out - like cancer.
“But Stevens says he’s no radical”
Just a moron.
The left has been wanting this convention for years if not decades.
IMHO - Levin and other moderates have played right in to their hands. In fact I think Levin and others like him are part of the big picture that will strip away all our liberty. But Mark has been promised a cell with free cheeseburgers.
“Article V, Constitutional Convention supporters — watch out. We could lose the 2nd Amendment.”
That would require that a large number of state legislatures send representatives to the convention with that strict instruction and then that a large majority of states’ citizens vote for such a change. That is inconceivable and not sufficient fear to argue against the several desperately needed actions that would have sufficient support to be presented at a convention of the states.
“I think every one of my proposals is a moderate proposal,”
Yes, that’s the way Communists think.
“Hey, JP, how about we revisit the notion that the SCOTUS can overrule the other co-equal branches of government?”
How about tenure or age limits on SC justices?
I don’t think they should serve longer than 30 years or past age 75. That seems moderate and reasonable to me.
I prefer the original John Paul Jones. A patriot and freedom fighter, not a leftist ahole and freedom-taker.
I guess we should thank him for now making it harder for the SCOTUS to ignore the Constitution and make these changes by their rulings, since he is now basically on record saying that all these changes would indeed require amendments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.