Posted on 04/24/2014 7:09:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
Honestly, unless you are a big government liberal, how many people think the federal government should have more power than it already exercises over its citizens?
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, 94, thinks the Constitution needs at least six amendments in order to bring the country more in line with what he believes is good for us. He outlines them in his new book, "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution." It is a revealing look into liberal thinking and the ideological opposite of radio talk show host Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic." More about that in a moment.
Stevens elaborated on his book in an interview with USA Today.
One of his priorities would be to change the Second Amendment. As he writes in his book, "...the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were "well regulated," has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms WHEN SERVING IN THE MILITIA shall not be infringed.'"
I doubt Stevens' update would get much traction in Congress.
The Second Amendment was written and ratified precisely because the Founders had personal experience with how a tyrannical government can restrict, even eliminate, liberty if its citizens are not armed for their own and liberty's defense.
Stevens' second proposal would change the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to include the death penalty, which he has long opposed. The chances of that passing Congress are about the same as his first proposal.
He thinks the First Amendment's free speech clause does not prohibit government from restricting the amount of money spent on political campaigns, contrary to recent majority opinions by the current Supreme Court.
In the Court's 1992 verdict on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, Stevens wrote, "The social costs of overruling (Roe) at this late date would be enormous. Roe is an integral part of a correct understanding of both the concept of liberty and the basic equality of men and women." "Social costs" was an argument used to oppose British slave traders and Southern emancipation. Only the morally obtuse would argue that the slaughter of 55 million American babies (and counting) would somehow fit the Founders' understanding of liberty and equality.
Stevens' moral compass is out of whack when he favors preserving the lives of convicted murderers, but no protection for the unborn, even after viability up to the moment of birth.
Mark Levin's book is far more in line with the Founder's thinking than is Stevens' approach to the Constitution. Unlike the Founders, Stevens apparently has never seen an area where government should not stick its nose.
Levin wants to place the federal government back within its constitutional boundaries by using a provision in Article 5 that allows two-thirds of state legislatures to call a constitutional convention. His proposal would strictly limit what delegates could do so as to avoid a runaway convention that could damage the Constitution. Levin believes a state-called constitutional convention is the only way to stop the "blob" of the federal government, which, like a B-movie monster, continues to "eat" away at our freedoms and at ever-increasing costs.
Most of Levin's proposed reform amendments return decision-making authority, in key respects, to the state legislatures, limit the power of the Washington ruling class through term limits and state overrides and breathe new life into free-market capitalism and private property rights. This is what we need.
Not more of Stevens' liberal thinking, which unfortunately, his successor, Elena Kagan, seems to replicate. It is another reminder, if one is needed, that elections matter. This November, the balance of power on the Court, the future of the Constitution and possibly the country may be at stake.
Which makes HIS opinions worth the same as mine.....................
Bears repeating over and over.
Balderdash! Here is a link to an excellent FreeRepublic post quoting numerous founders about who should bear arms and why: [Link to a post by EternalVigilance]
In addition, here is a statement from the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution in keeping with the founders' views cited in the link above by EternalVigilance: [Link, my bold below]
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Back in the 1700’s, “well-regulated” meant “well-trained.”
This senile old coot is a disgrace.
Exactly. The Militia is every adult American. But the elites just cannot accept that. So they try to spin the Militia as being today's National Guard.
Which is ridiculous. The National Guard can be federalized. No way should anything in the Bill of Rights be subject to federal override.
I too favor changing the Second Amendment in order to clarify its scope. I suggest we strike the “Well-regulated militia” clause. The Amendment should read “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Period.
Take away the phony qualifier the gun-grabbers (and ill-informed Supreme Court justices) hide behind.
DOA.
He would have a far better chance getting five old men and women in black robes to agree with him... as most unconstitutional powers have been given. I fear living in a country where ever right paid for with patriots' blood depends on which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy gets out of in the morning of a decision.
Simply another fine example of NO WISDOM with age.
Pathetically sad.
I’d like to see “and we really mean exactly what these words say” after the requirements to be president (along with a definition of Natural Born Citizen), after the list of enumerated powers, and after each of the first ten Amendments. Unfortunately, the big government left would ignore that phrase just as they ignore the rest of the Constitution.
IOW, our freedoms depend on who is elected president.
That means we are not a republic.
My grandmother who passed away a couple of years ago at 96, had more guts, more morals and virtue in her pinky finger than most of these asshats up there put together...
And I believe other FRiends here have relatives up there in age with the same excellent qualities...
Sometimes I really have to wonder what happened to some of those people in that generation...
We would be in the right to know...
This guy being a prime example...
Hi Graewoulf,
You wrote:
“...Boehner [and] Cantor,...have refused to hold the ... Obama Administration accountable for their destructive actions...”
I am very interested to know what the expression “...HOLD ACCOUNTABLE...” means to YOU.
Do you mean: “failed to impeach Obama?”
If so, I think you need to reread what our Constitution says is the role of Harry Reid’s Senate in an impeachment.
Do you mean: “shut down the Government” until Obama “gives up” his evil ways?”
If so, I think you are over-optimistic (manically over-optimistic?) regarding the effectiveness of childish tantrums in the real world.
Do you mean, “Take the capital police to the White House and arrest the miscreants!”
If so, I think you need to remember that the Secret Service are the better marksmen.
Do you mean, “Just tell the truth about Obama’s failures and the dumbed-down media will recover their integrity and the corrupt Democrats will become patriots and Peace and Justice and Happy-ness will descend on America, and angels will sing...”
Really?
FU JPS. It’s not often you see a former Justice get political.
Do you think Jerry Ford is in hell for appointing the guy? It’s a shame Obama got to replace him.
We really need Ginsberg to hang on and not die or quit until we have a Republican President.
That old commie William O. Douglas kept promoting his opinions about judicial cases after he retired from the court, even after he had a stroke. A lot of retired RAT activists can’t help themselves for some reason, and have no shame.
In the case of Stevens, this is another example of why the argument that we “need” to elect GOP presidents to “stop activist judges” is a false premise. John Roberts was the final straw with me, and that guy was marketed as a conservative. Stevens was marketed as a “moderate”, and turned out to be a socialist. How is he any different from the typical Clinton/Obama appointee? He may even be to the left of some of them! I held my nose and voted for McCain & Romney, but I didn’t do so because I thought they’d appoint decent judges. For all we know, they could have appointed two more Ginsburgs that had “R” next to their name.
The worst thing about Stevens, IMO, is Jerry Ford never even realized the folly of appointing him. As Fieldmarshaldj pointed out, even Ike deeply regretted the Earl Warren appointment as “the biggest damn fool decision I ever made”.
One other thing I’ll add though — I disagree with the articles premise that Levin’s amendments should be considered instead because they’re what the founders had in mind. If that were true, they would have been proposed back in 1788. Many of Levin’s proposed amendments might be good ideas, but conservatives on the right who blindly worship whatever Levin says are as bad as leftists who blindly worship “constitutional law experts” like Obama.
“Do you think Jerry Ford is in hell for appointing the guy?”
I pointed out a few years back that the “Conservatives” almost ALWAYS seem to veer leftward, yet, the leftists NEVER veer right (or even to the center).
So, I’d say “No” for Jerry Ford the same way I’d say “No” to GHW Bush going to Hell for appointing Souter, whom he was assured was a die hard “Conservative”.
Those two POTUS have other, more direct, sins to atone for, especially Bush, Sr.
Well, at least JFK’s appointment of Byron “Whizzer” White turned out to be a good one. Stevens is just a moonbat who errs on the side of big government fascism and a populace with few rights. People of his ilk have no business serving in any judicial capacity.
That’s one. One example.
Stevens (or any of his ilk) shouldn’t be allowed to operate a TV remote control, let alone sit in judgement of anything, living, dead or otherwise.
There are other examples of liberal RAT judicial appointments who turn out to be good, but it’s definitely rare. If I knew the federal appellate court and circuit court appointments I would be able to cite some other examples. When it comes to SCOTUS, the last clear example before Byron White was James Clark McReynolds. He was a Woodrow Wilson appointee and one of the most vehemently anti-New Deal justices, and continued to vote that way even after the court caved to FDR and became majority pro-New Deal in 1937.
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.