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.
IIRC, he along with O’Connor were the 2 justices advocating that foreign law should trump The Constitution.
Go away, judge...
The Nov. 2014 elections will be very important regarding the future of the federal courts.
And the Nov. 2016 presidential election will be vitally important in that area too. A President Hillary will appoint the same sorts of radical liberal judges which Obama has appointed. Eight years of Hillary after eight years of Obama appointees will send us off the edge in some ways.
The only bulwark against liberal presidents radical nominees would be strong conservatives in the Senate, who can be in the position to reject these radical nominees.
I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg also is in favor of consulting foreign laws too. She’s liberal, she’s the ACLU representative on the Supreme Court, so it would not surprise me if she held such views.
Two thirds of the House *and* Senate voting "aye" *and* 38 state legislatures doing the same? Good luck with *that* one,Gramps!
A liberal jusdge that’s probably only got 5 or less years left to live probably just wants to get his last punches back in to screw the system before he heads off to the pit that has no airconditioning. He won’t be alive to feel the consequences anyway. Its probably part of his rationale.
just another example of why judges have lost so much respect.
Anything this raving moon-bat liberal recommends is probably bad for the USA.
Someone needs to take him and Jimmy Carter and escort them to a nice facility, where theres a beautiful view from a room with lots of pillows on the floor and walls.
The boob was a Supreme Court Justice, and he lacks any sense of honesty, as well as respect for individual liberties, right and wrong, or fairness.
How about a Constitutional amendment where
the EXEMPT and their EXEMPT families and EXEMPT staff
have all their assets removed in the future
to pay for the dismal catastrophe the EXEMPT
created for the NON-exempt.
Several Republican Presidents could have shored up the Supreme Court if not for brain-dead picks like Souter and Stevens.
Stevens is the ‘Jimmy Carter’ of Supreme Court Justices.
How disheartening it is when one looks at all of the lost opportunities of the Justices that were appointed by Republicans. How bad it is can’t be overstated.
It’s funny how none of the liberal Justices appointed by Democrats NEVER end up being ‘surprise’ conservatives. Nor do they appoint liberal Justices that ‘evolve’ over time and become Conservative later on.
The arguments were laid out in the Federalist Papers that the Standing Army would have to be kept in check in order to avoid having the Military take over (This from people who had successfully overthrown British Military forces which were the de facto British colonial government).
The check was for The People, in their entirety, to be armed without any infringement on that right because the overwhelming numbers of the people would be sufficient to keep any army in check even without formal martial training .
It isn't about training the army, it has no age restriction, it IS about The People being able to resist tyranny from their own government or military forces, should the need arise.
All else weakens the Right.
He will... Soon enough. Being 94 and all.
There, fixed it!
Regards,
Gerald Ford’s huge mistake.
We all need to read both of these books to better understand the reality of the ideological polarization that is tearing America asunder.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention!
_________________
B. Hussein Obama has faithfully carried out his pledge to “Fundamentally transform the United States of America,” while our sorry Doormat Republicans in the US Congress are STILL amazed, surprised, shocked or in Boehner’s case, ‘sad’ that B. Hussein is doing exactly what he promised to do AFTER >5 VERY LONG YEARS of Obamanation!
Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, Ryan, Issa, Mike Rogers, King of NY are just a few of the US House members who have refused to hold the Democrat Obama Administration accountable for their destructive actions.
There has never been a more corrupt administration more deserving of US House Special Prosecutor Investigations than the Democrat Obama administration.
Thus, Speaker Boehner has been derelict in his duties to his office as Speaker of the US House of Representatives, PERIOD.
US House Speaker Boehner and right hand men Cantor and McCarthy need to be voted out of their Obama-friendly “leadership” positions ASAP by the US House Members.
2014 is our opportunity to rid Congress of as many Doormat Republicans as possible so that we Conservatives can take back our Nation instead of waiting for the “Doormat to Democrats” Republicans to behave as if they really wanted to work FOR our Republic.
So if we have the so-called limited constitutional convention, what are the odds these make it into the recommendations?
And is that why he is recommending them now?
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.