here's five words for him, ESAD Azzzhole...
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 ...
here's five words for him, ESAD Azzzhole...
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?
Zoloft ambien.
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.
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.