Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Are Justice Stevensís Proposed Six Amendments?
Josh Blackman's blog ^ | 3-6-2014 | Josh Blackman

Posted on 03/06/2014 5:05:02 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amendments; banglist; stevens; ussc
I pulled this from this blog because I figured it's worth discussing. The amendments he posited makes me glad he retired. It makes me mad he was ever on the USSC. He clearly has a disdain for any sort of localized control and supports authoritarianism with the most shameless of passion.
1 posted on 03/06/2014 5:05:02 PM PST by Bogey78O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

He doesn’t understand—or doesn’t know about—the reasons why the framers restricted the federal government in the ways they did (Nor, why they granted a right to bear arms.)


2 posted on 03/06/2014 5:18:14 PM PST by CondorFlight (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight
He doesn’t understand—or doesn’t know about—the reasons why the framers restricted the federal government in the ways they did

Stevens was purportedly well into senility before he retired from the court.

He wrote the majority opinion in one case (memory fails), citing a precedent that meant the exact opposite of how he construed it.

Evidently, neither his clerks nor his peers on the court could handle him.

3 posted on 03/06/2014 5:28:29 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

One question: which of these amendments is the most naive?

Actually a staggering question. Id have to vote for the last one I read.


4 posted on 03/06/2014 5:29:02 PM PST by RossA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight
He doesn’t understand—or doesn’t know about—the reasons why the framers restricted the federal government in the ways they did

Stevens was purportedly well into senility before he retired from the court.

He wrote the majority opinion in one case (memory fails), citing a precedent that meant the exact opposite of how he construed it.

Evidently, neither his clerks nor his peers on the court could handle him.

5 posted on 03/06/2014 5:29:03 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

It’s really amazing that a lunatic like this was on the Supreme Court. Black robed tyrant comes to mind.


6 posted on 03/06/2014 5:44:24 PM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RossA
No, here is the most naive one with emphasis on the offending supposition.

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.

Anybody here have a measuring stick with 'reasonable' on it? Is reasonable between 5 and 6 inches? Maybe for Asians reasonable is 4-5 inches. Blacks 6-7 inches? What exactly is the reasonable width of somebodies hand?

7 posted on 03/06/2014 5:47:00 PM PST by Usagi_yo (Standardization is an Evolutionary dead end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

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


8 posted on 03/06/2014 5:48:31 PM PST by Forrestfire ("If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." Gen. George Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O
The fifth amendment specifically provides for capital punishment as a just punishment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. Why are leftists so repelled by the Constitution.

9 posted on 03/06/2014 6:07:04 PM PST by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O
[[Comment Redacted]]
10 posted on 03/06/2014 6:07:08 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

When you take a serous look at Justice Stevens and others appointed to the courts, can you start to understand the necessity for Maine to secede and offer a place for those who can and will accept the risk and responsibilities that go with being free.


11 posted on 03/06/2014 6:18:07 PM PST by The_Republic_Of_Maine (Be kept informed on Maine's secession, sign up at freemaine@hushmail.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

The old liberal’s clerks wrote a book for him. And now they put it out under his name, with his blessing, so it’ll get some attention.

Shove it, kiddies....there is a way to pass legislation in this nation, and old SCOTUS men who haven’t had an original thought in decades can’t change that fact.


12 posted on 03/06/2014 6:25:21 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

The 2nd Amendment assures we civilian’s arms to counter the Organized Militia. Apparently the Judge doesn’t see it that way.


13 posted on 03/06/2014 6:26:43 PM PST by RAY (God Bless the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

How arrogant of him to think HE knows better than the patriots who wrote our blessed constitution. If only we could only seperate ourself from these egotistical, self righteous, narcissistic, this country could heal.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


14 posted on 03/06/2014 6:56:02 PM PST by Linda Frances (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

i think they show what an intellectual lightweight stevens is.

per campaign finance amendment, what the hell is “reasonable”, Stevens? why put such a subjective and therefore will be in the courts, term, in there? does NOTHING!!!!


15 posted on 03/06/2014 7:27:01 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

“It’s really amazing that a lunatic like this was on the a Supreme Court.”

He was a Republican pick (Ford). Like Souter, Roberts, Blackman, O’Conner, and Harriet Myers sold to us as a conservative.

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


16 posted on 03/06/2014 7:47:57 PM PST by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

Quite a wish list. Does it leave any power not arrogated to the Courts?


17 posted on 03/06/2014 8:15:21 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
Anybody here have a measuring stick with 'reasonable' on it?

No, but "judges" like Stevens will be more than happy to supply you with one that'll work today. You may need a new one made up tomorrow.

Every one of these "amendments" has that quality about it.

18 posted on 03/06/2014 8:18:30 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Bookmark


19 posted on 03/06/2014 10:51:00 PM PST by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good g race to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
The old liberal’s clerks wrote a book for him.

I wonder if he ever read it.

20 posted on 03/07/2014 3:10:06 AM PST by Right Wing Assault
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Forrestfire

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.


21 posted on 03/07/2014 6:27:15 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Atlas Sneezed

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.


22 posted on 03/07/2014 6:43:28 AM PST by Bogey78O (We had a good run. Coulda been great still.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

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).


23 posted on 03/07/2014 7:29:54 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("Income Inequality?" Let's start with Washington DC vs. the rest of the nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South
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]

24 posted on 04/22/2014 12:42:00 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
Anything challenging the Marxist Left’s stranglehold on power will be deemed Unreasonable.
25 posted on 04/22/2014 6:09:29 AM PDT by Swen Manuela1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

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”.


26 posted on 04/22/2014 6:24:05 AM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South; All

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.


27 posted on 04/22/2014 6:59:14 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; All

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.


28 posted on 04/22/2014 7:04:09 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Swen Manuela1

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.


29 posted on 04/22/2014 7:35:55 AM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

It scares everyone else who wants to keep our freedom.


30 posted on 04/22/2014 8:50:48 AM PDT by Swen Manuela1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
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.

31 posted on 04/22/2014 8:54:43 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Swen Manuela1

Yes, but think of the children.


32 posted on 04/22/2014 9:29:46 AM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

That they should inherit a free society.


33 posted on 04/22/2014 11:26:19 AM PDT by Swen Manuela1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson