Posted on 04/21/2014 9:04:39 AM PDT by Cheerio
(CNSNews.com) - 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 ...
In those days the eldest got the farm and the youngest got the boot.
Then there is the problem of the young woman dragging the young boy in to the woods to avoid becoming an old maid, had multiple instances of that in the 17TH and 18TH century. The confession before the Parish tended to be embarrassing, especially if he wasn't the only draggy.
You get your head, the top one, together around 17 or 18, I will go 17.
Those out of touch think they can disarm the people without any trouble
And they don’t know they are out of touch
Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower.
Justice Stevens STFU...
Stevens has his history all wrong and twisted to his point of view and distorting truth. The States did not want to ratify the constitution as drafted allowing an armed Federal army unless all men (not militia)were allowed the use of arms which is why it took decades to finally ratify it with a Bill of Rights and starting with the 2nd most important right for all men to always be armed freely:
A Well Regulated Militia?
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an “AMENDMENT”. No “Articles in Amendment” to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until “further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers”. (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to “amended”?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE “MILITIA”. The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the “militia” as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. “(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the “Militia” that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word “militia” was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the “Militia” was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word “militia” as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of “Militia” that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend “People” today:
“Militia” in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:
“To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:
“To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” Any “patriot” out there still want to be called a member of the “MILITIA” as defined by the original Constitution?
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” The only way the States would accept the “MILITIA” as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”. The States realized that “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” required that the “MILITIA” as originally created in the Constitution be “WELL REGULATED” by a “restrictive clause.” How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”? By demanding that “restrictive clause two” better know as the “Second Amendment” be added to the original Constitution providing:
“THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” The States knew that “PEOPLE” with “ARMS” would “WELL REGULATE” the Federal “MILITIA”!
Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:
“A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
For those still overcome by propaganda:
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the “MILITIA” is not “WELL REGULATED” by “PEOPLE” keeping and bearing arms, the “MILITIA” becomes a threat to the “SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.”
The “MILITIA” has no “RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” in the Second Amendment, rather it is only “THE RIGHT OF THE “”PEOPLE”” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
The good news is that the Founding Fathers did not ask this dimwit.
I think Stevens is confused. It looks like he thinks the militia is the US military. His phrasing indicates he believes there is nothing in the Constitution which permits the government to arm its military members. It's maddening that this oaf was once a member of the body which evaluates the laws of the US.
The Libtard agenda never changes. But no worse than Scalia saying getting groped at the airport is AOK and NSA collecting all of our communication isn’t necessarily unconstitutional.
And?
Hm, that might make for some interesting, and unintended, consequences:
New Mexico Constitution, Art XVIII, Sec. 1. [Composition, name and commander in chief of militia.]
The militia of this state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this state. The organized militia shall be called the "national guard of New Mexico," of which the governor shall be the commander in chief.
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.