Skip to comments.Justice Stevens: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment
Posted on 04/12/2014 9:15:49 AM PDT by lilyramone
John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.
Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
and some people ARE one ;-)
Contrary to Stevens opinion and the Common Core example, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not targets for group wordsmithing.
Hey JP, if and when Americans want any more crap out of you, we’ll unscrew your head and dip it out.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
How about a fix of the pharmaceutical industry justice ssss?
Too much power there?
So this is not a "fix" but a complete redirection. No. In fact H**L NO!
If @$$holes could fly, the Supreme Court would be an airport.
I got two words for him and they ain’t Happy Birthday.
Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.
His recommendation to change it to “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.” acknowledges that it currently has nothing to do with service in the Militia.
Thank you former Justice Stevens.
Funny, I thought it was a judge’s responsibility to correctly interpret the law, not “fix” society.
For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia.
If assholes could fly,former justice Stevens would be in orbit right now.He’s just another liberal sore loser.
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. All citizens are members of the militia, and in service.”
I'm exquisitely pleased this bastard no longer has a say in interpreting anything with respect to the Bill of Rights. Had the founders wanted to limit the right to bear arms only to 'militia service' they would have said such.
I have them, come and take them - I WILL use them.
“When I joined the court in 1975, that holding (US vs Miller) was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities.”
That’s because no one learns original intent any more. But as far as states rights, they might want to read the 14th Amendment. From Wikipedia: The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.
Of course he'll very quickly return to federalism when it suits the issue being discussed.
You are correct, of course. However, that fact will be intentionally lost on any mainstream media interpretation of this asshole’s book, article, whatever.
Mr Steven makes it crystal clear in this article that he is not competent to serve as a judge. Seems he can not figure out the difference between an actual statement of law like “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and a listed motivation for having such a law “a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state”. This is very very very simple and obvious. Its not really a thing rational competent people can disagree with. Unless he is a complete idiot, he is a fraud—either way it is disgraceful that he is a judge.
We are one scotus judge away from this a$$hole’s fix. He!!, Roberts may be the one.
Gerald Ford, you effin idiot
What a moron Stevens is.
IF the 2A was only referring to active militia service, IT WOULD BE UNNECESSARY.
Easy: What is a militia without arms ?
It goes WITHOUT SAYING that a militia will have arms.
YOU DON’T NEED AND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION TO DECLARE THAT MILITIAS WILL BE ARMED.
It therefore must be talking about the right to bear arms when NOT in a militia.
As it mentions an effective militia for the basis of its reasoning, it’s obviously saying, in modern parlance - since we know we need an effective militia, and that having one means we have to have people good at using arms, people will have the right to bear arms without restriction, so they can maintain their proficiency with them.
Here are five words for the eminent Justice: F*** you, John Paul Stevens.
Amazing how so many ‘smart’ people are so horribly ignorant. It’s not about defending the country from outsiders. It’s about citizens protecting themselves from tyranny.
Oh, and it isn’t about hunting for dinner either.
What if there were amendments like:
The right of the people to engage in sexual intercourse within a marriage between a man and a woman shall not be infringed.
The liberals would go apes__t!
“Repeal this and you’re screwed”
He has no problem with that,he says it's a right in the U.S. Constitution.
HIs logic is all over the place. First he says we need to add five words to the 2nd amendment, then, knowing that won’t happen, he presses for further legislation by insisting that the Heller ruling didn’t over-rule Miller. Either argument is coherent; together they are nonsense. Why would an intelligent man be so stupid? Because he is, not a reasonable man, but an ideologue bent on deceit: How can any sane, reasonable man argue that an AR-15 is not a useful weapon for defending one’s home? Or that it’s not what a militiaman might train with?
Gun-grabbers always reach first for the guns most useful for defending one’s liberty and prosperity, and last for the guns used by criminals to deprive people of liberty and prosperity. Why is that?
Even further, “between one man and one woman” . . . what would the Muslims and their liberal “allies” then say?
Save those with colostomies.
"The right of the people to engage in sexual intercourse within a marriage between a man and a woman, being necessary for the general welfare of a free state, shall not be infringed."
Stevens......go read James Madison’s ‘Federalist 46’ then shut the F up!
Oh, yah, and go change your Depends. You stink.
A “well-regulated Militia” IMHO is simply one that conducts itself properly, i.e. has not devolved into a predatory gang.
The numbers are irrelevant. Your family is a militia to protect family members and the home.
Government organization and command is not mandated. Citizens have a right to organize for training and self-defense if they wish.
Any armed citizens who respect the rights of others and may or may not organize into a larger body constitute a well-regulated militia.
PS Judge Stevens you use many many words to get to your five words that nullify a basic Constitutional right.
These judges and politicians should be hung for what they’ve done to our nation.
Give them a quick trial, and hang their A$$es!
Are you sure about that? I don’t think that’s so.
But a very large percentage are gangbangers offing each other / people who dissed them. It’s a societal issue no one wants to talk about, so you get this general “more gun control” nonsense from many.
“These judges and politicians should be hung for what theyve done to our nation.”
Just so the grammar police to blow a head gasket, I should’ve said HANGED!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
So this senile old commie thinks guns should only be posessed by the “militia”? And that’s considered an original idea?
There are words that could fix the Constitution in the other direction.
For example, you could take out the reference to a militia completely.
Or you could amend the 2nd Amendment to read that the right to bear arms will be regulated by the President.
But what we have is what we have and I’m satisfied that a US citizen has the right to bear arms (whatever ‘bear’ means)as an individual.
The amendment, as Stevens alters it, makes no sense.
Has any government (or anyone else) ever questioned the right of citizens to bear arms in a government sponsored militia? Why would anyone bother to declare such a right?
The only reason it makes any sense at all for the amendment to be included in the BOR is if it is a declaration that free people possess the right to bear arms in spite of their government’s wishes.
Take any right and filter it through the necessity of a government-run organization and it ceases to have any meaning whatsoever, nor then in that form is it a “right” that has ever been in dispute.
Get involved with your state group. This is how to keep the a$$clowns in check. Just ask the BLM.
This kind of caca would be nipped in the bud if EVERY session of the SC would be televised.
IMO it is a disgrace that the people of the US can not watch the ultimate court in the land while they go about the people’s business.
God’s laws and naturally endowed rights never change. Hard concept for idiots to grasp.
Idiotic. It would change the meaning of the law so that only people in the service of the government could have guns. The point of all amendments to the Constitution is to limit, not strengthen, the power of the government.
The audio is already on C-Span. Having the video would simply drive the judges and lawyers to make it even more of a political show than it already is. It makes me want to puke when I hear the lies and deception and flawed logic.
Having it on C-Span doesn’t stop the flow of lies, deception, corruption that spews out of SCOTUS.
Our legal system needs an enormous housecleaning, it’s chock full of unrepentant criminal, vile, immoral people.
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.