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.
Trying to fully understand why or how it is an exercise in futility.
No one, especially judges, should have lifetime appointments/jobs; it rots people.
It’s interesting to look at the circumstances of perhaps the only two liberal RAT SCOTUS appointees in the past century that turned out to be good:
James Clark McReynolds had been attorney general under Woodrow Wilson, and apparently he was a mean, grouchy guy that everyone found difficult to work with, including Wilson. Wilson basically appointed him to SCOTUS because he wanted to get rid of him as A.G. but had no reason to fire him. McReynolds was a lifelong RAT and had been known as a trust-buster as A.G., but he veered rightward on everything else and made it clear on the court he couldn’t stand liberals. He wouldn’t even talk to fellow Wilson appointee John Clarke because he loathed the man’s leftist beliefs. He was the court’s most strident Court critic of FDR’s New Deal programs and never waviered from those views.
Byron White was known for his celebrity status as a former football player and he had worked hard for Kennedy’s election in 1960, raising lots of money for him. He didn’t have much a paper trail for a judicial record, but he was a favorite of big labor and JFK appointed him as a favor to them. He’s best known for being the only justice who sided with Rehnquist during Roe v. Wade. He wasn’t even all that conservative but considering he was a RAT appointee, he was definitely more in the mold of Anthony Kennedy than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He was always an advocate of judicial restrait and admitted he was most comfortable serving under conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist and most uncomfortable serving with Chief Justice Earl Warren.
There might have been a third closet conservative justice if Obama had appointed Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke to SCOTUS. Supposely her name was in the running because of the clout of her powerful RAT machine husband, Alderman Ed Burke, who is the longest serving alderman in Chicago. She was most likely passed over because of her age (turned 70 last year) and heavy involvement in the Catholic Church. Burke’s decisions have been surprisingly decent for a Chicago RAT, albeit not as conservative as your typical downstate Republican judge.
I would limit SCOTUS judges to a maximum of 20 years on the federal bench, or when they reach the age of 75, whichever comes first. Of course, doing so would require a constitutional amendment. (and if we're amending the constitution, we might as well go all the way and change it so voters can kick out federal judges)
One trend in American politics that makes little sense to me is that most SCOTUS judges are choosen from the ranks of existing federal appellate court justices. This includes conservative justices like Alito and Scalia. If this were Europe, I suppose that would make sense, but the way we choose Congressmen and Presidents tend to be the opposite -- more often that not we fill the office with someone from OUTSIDE Washington that has held office at the state level. Why not do the same with SCOTUS judges? People that have been in the beltway too long shouldn't get to stay there longer in a more powerful position.
If I was President, I'd come up with a short list by having my advisers vet existing state judges and giving me a list of the top 10 most reliably conservative justices on state supreme courts (Judge Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court, etc.). Then I'd research them further and the interview the prospective choices until I narrowed it down to one.
I can’t disagree with anything you wrote. Well done, BB!
My NHL picks (in order):
East:
1. BOS
2. MON
3. PIT
West:
1. CHI
2. STL
3. COL
I think BOS coming out of the East will have an easier time than whoever wins the West.
Interestingly enough, this article only mentions two of Stevens proposed constitutional amendments. I’m now looking at ALL of Levin and Stevens proposed constitutional amendments, and judging them by their own merits (contrary to the knee-jerk assertion of this author that everything Levin says is all-wise and knowing and everything Stevens says is automatically evil). Levin proposes 10, Stevens proposes 6.
Here’s my reaction to each:
LEVIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/13/mark-levins-liberty-amendments/
I agree on 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10. I say HELL NO to 2. I think 8 is unnecessary, I need more information on 7, and I’m unsure on 9.
STEVENS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2014/03/04/what-are-justice-stevenss-proposed-six-amendments/
I agree with 2 and 4 (in both cases it would reign in the corrupt abuses of my tyrannical state government). I think 1 is unnecessary, I disagree with 3, and say HELL NO to 5 and 6.
Either in place of (or concurrent with) a Civil War, the only way I see “America” surviving is by having a Pinochet-type or group of patriotic fascists take over the country and suspending the Constitution to introduce nation saving acts, which include mass deportations enforced by EINSATZGRUPPEN.
The Communists, their enablers, the passive “Lawrence Welk Gang” and Socialist “Conservatives” all need to go. And by “go”, I mean go...straight to Hell.
The population of this country should be reset at a pre-WW2 level.
So all of these additions to the Constitution mean nothing to me. That’s a large part of why we’re in the mess we’re in: TOO MANY LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
“...No one, especially judges, should have lifetime appointments/jobs; it rots people....”
That it does, indeed.
When you perceive yourself as untouchable and unaccountable you tend to act accordingly.
For some reason it seems to bring out the inner autocrat inside folks.
“When you perceive yourself as untouchable and unaccountable you tend to act accordingly.”
Damn straight.
Seems like old Commies live FOREVER...
“Patriotic fascists” is a contradictory term. This is rather descriptive of what Democrats are (highly fascist) and think they are (”patriotic”).
In my parlance, the term “Patriotic fascists” indicates real Americans with real American values; the polar opposite of Democrats.
But I can see what you mean.
This is a hell of a series that the Hawks are having with the Blues.
Yep! Most of these first round series are epic.
I suppose we should be relieved that he isn’t proposing that Obama make them law through Executive Order,
He turns 96 today.
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.