What Are Justice Stevens’s Proposed Six Amendments?

Josh Blackman's blog ^ | 3-6-2014 | Josh Blackman

[Bogey78O]

After my previous post on the Justice Stevens’s new book, I requested a review copy from the publisher, which I have now received. Here are his six proposed Amendments. I’ll avoid commenting until I read the entire book (a fairly breezy 133 pages, followed by the Constitution as it stands now, and a list of all JPS clerks).

The “Anti-Commandeering Rule” (Amend the Supremacy Clause of Article VI) This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges and other public officials. in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Political Gerrymandering – Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historical boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.

Campaign Finance – Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.

Sovereign Immunity – Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency, or state officer with an immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress, or any provision of this Constitution.

Death Penalty- (Amend the 8th Amendment) Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted. The Second Amendment – (Amend the 2nd Amendment) 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’ll have more thoughts later.

I will note that his biography, which says he “Retired from the Supreme Court on June 29, 2010″ is inaccurate.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I do have to agree with the Anti-Gerrymandering Amendment!!!

---

Me too. Congressional districts may have borders justified only based on criteria such as:
1. Boundaries defined by county lines (with clumps of counties or portions thereof being compact andd not extended).
2. Boundaries defined by straight lines segments intersecting as obtuse angles.
3. Boundaries defined to minimize the ratio of periphery to area below a reasonable threshold (such as that of a square plus 25%).
4. Boundaries defined by major rivers or highways.
5. Boundaries that avoid populated areas.

[Bogey78O]

I think the only criteria should be city or county lines. For multiple districts within a city, the lines should follow natural land borders or be straight.

What so many lefties miss is that the worst gerrymandered districts are the ones created for minority democrats.

[Atlas Sneezed]

How about we have a computer program that can generate districts that have short boundaries, and avoid putting too many people into districts with far-flung populations when there are closer populations they should be grouped with (I think the logarithm would be to minimize the sum of the distances of each voter from the center of area of his district, or better still from the center of population of his district.

Add some randomness, run 1001 versions for each state. Let the Democrats toss out 500, and the republicans toss out 500. Better still, just pick the one that minimizes the distance of voters from the population center. (One could make it computationally easier by assuming all voters live at the center of area of their zip code, and then doing this based on zip code populations).

[OneWingedShark]

Interesting how many of the GOP picks are just as bad as the Dem choices.

I'd say that the mask is off: it is now plain to anyone that there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican party… oh, the Republican party may claim they're on our side, but ask yourself this: what has the opposition party really honestly and vigorously opposed from the Democrat's agenda?

1. Fast & Furious?
   Then why has no-one been punished?
2. Roe v. Wade?
   Then why is it always regarded as a losing proposition, even as its public support is now in the minority?
   (Also, why is it that the constitutional right to medical privacy applies to abortion but not, say, the Affordable Care Act?)
3. Gun control? / The Second amendment?
   Oh they're fine with common sense gun-control like we have now&hallip; and traditional/long-standing restrictions like the GCA prohibited persons.
   (Also, why is such an obviously ex post facto, even by the judiciary's watered down definition, law held to be valid?)
   When was the last time the Republican party pushed for repeal of the NFA or GCA?
4. Fiscal [Ir]Responsibility?
   The Republicans did not push the issue of operating for multiple years in the absence of a budget.
   (The Congress is required by law to pass a budget.)
5. Amnesty?
   Just look at their stances and sound-bytes; if it weren't for the upcoming election they'd have already shoved it down our throats.

IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE THERE IS ONLY GOVERNMENT. [Direct Link]
The Tao of Republican Orthodoxy [Direct Link]	The Modern Democratic Party & You [Direct Link]

[Swen Manuela1]

Anything challenging the Marxist Left’s stranglehold on power will be deemed Unreasonable.

[supercat]

How about for “Sovereign Immunity”, say “Illegitimate actions can by definition form no part of any government agent’s legitimate duties. Federal government personnel may be exempted from state laws only when they are making a good faith effort to act legitimately; efforts to abide by the Constitution “just enough” to avoid censure shall not be considered “good faith”.

[marktwain]

Since Franklin Roosevelt, the “progressive” media had a veto on any supreme court appointment who was not “progressive” enough, not to mention that the American Bar, dominated by “progressives” has been allowed a veto as well.

Most Republican Presidents have been careful to keep within those guidlines.

[marktwain]

The problem is not the parties, it is the media. That is where the real power lies.

The Republicans are terrified of the old media, and this administration has greater collusion with it, whether voluntarily, or through extortion and blackmail, than at any other time in our history, except perhaps during WWII.

I admit, there is little separation, if any, between the Democrats and the old media. They are completely entertwined.

[Usagi_yo]

Hmm, I feel like I’m being quoted.

Anyway, #1 should be: All old and retired senile judges by any standard should keep their mouths shut. It scares the children.

[Swen Manuela1]

It scares everyone else who wants to keep our freedom.

[OneWingedShark]

The problem is not the parties, it is the media. That is where the real power lies.

I'm going to disagree; I think the problem really is the parties: take a look at the NSA's domestic spying — a lot of people, probably a supermajority by now, have at least serious misgivings about the agency. It would be a serious win to seriously push even legal restrictions, if not completely dissolving the agency, and yet the GOP just rolled over on the issue.

[Usagi_yo]

Yes, but think of the children.

[Swen Manuela1]

That they should inherit a free society.