Justice John Paul Stevens Proposes Changes to the Constitution

by Crane-Station (Eighth Amendemnt) and Frederick Leatherman (the rest of it)

John Paul Stevens official SCOTUS portrait cropJustice John Paul Stevens Proposes Changes to the Constitution

Retired United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, 94, recently toured with his new book, titled, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. He proposes changes to: the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, political gerrymandering, campaign finance, sovereign immunity, the death penalty, and the second amendment.

What does it take to amend the constitution?

Article V of the Constitution sets forth the process to be followed in amending the Constitution.

Here’s wikipedia:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

They made it difficult to amend the Constitution, but not impossible. After the two-thirds vote in the house, then three-quarters of the states have to also agree.

For a complete list of the six changes Justice Stevens proposes, go here.

Justice Stevens on the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment currently provides:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Justice Stevens has written in several dissenting opinions that our Founding Fathers did not want to maintain a standing army. Thus, their intent was to permit people to keep and bear arms in order to serve in a “well regulated militia,” as needed. They did not intend to create an absolute right to keep and bear arms against neighbors. Since we now have a standing military, there no longer exists any justification to keep and bear arms.

In addition, none of the other rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute, so there is no reason why the Second Amendment should be treated differently.

Justice Stevens’s proposal:

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.

His proposal is consistent with the intent of our Founding Fathers.

Justice Stevens on the Eighth Amendment and the Death Penalty

The Eighth Amendment provides:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[2]

Justice Stevens adds five words to this and proposes:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted.

He further comments:

For me, the question that cannot be avoided is whether the execution of only an ‘insignificant minimum’ of innocent citizens is tolerable in a civilized society. Given the availability of life imprisonment without the ability of parole as an alternative method of preventing the defendant from committing further crimes and deterring others from doing so, and the rules that prevent imposing an ‘eye for an eye’ form of retributive punishment, I find the answer to that question pellucidly clear. When it comes to state-mandated killings of innocent civilians, there can be no ‘insignificant minimum.’

There are seven general causes of wrongful conviction. Prosecutorial misconduct is one of them. And yet, prosecutors are not held accountable for anything that they do. Not only have innocent people been executed, but the real criminals have gone on to harm and kill. The idea of an acceptable par level of innocent people killed by state sanctioned homicide does not make sense.

I actually do not believe in prohibition-type things. That includes drugs, alcohol, that sort of thing, because there is little doubt that an underground and lucrative market will develop. Also on guns, there are people who hunt, and that sort of thing.

That said, I am not sure that when the founding fathers crafted the Second Amendment, that they envisioned what is going on today, with taking up arms, to defend against neighbors. On the issue of hunting, however, I believe that hunting was very popular at that time, as it is today.

I do not own a gun, nor do I ever want one, and also, my family was afflicted by gun violence in 1985, when my nephew and his girlfriend were both murdered by a person still unknown. When the Santa Barbara father of Chris Martinez spoke out and said that we think these things will not happen to us until they do- he was one hundred percent correct.

At that time I was a believer in the death penalty. But then, over the years I learned about the system, and I changed my mind. I believe that in many ways, throwing away the key to a locked door can be viewed as a harsher penalty.

Do you agree or disagree with Justice Stevens on these issues, or on the other issues that he proposed in his book? If the constitution were to change, would you, or would you not, support it? Do you believe that if the sale of firearms and ammunition was prohibited, that a black market would develop and grow for nefarious uses of guns, or not ?Are there other areas in the constitution that you believe deserve consideration?

Off-topic and unrelated:

Also note — Crane-Station here. We are currently resolving the power issue, and should be able to return home shortly. We are extremely grateful to anyone who was able to make a small donation, and we absolutely understand that many more are in our position, and that is something that we understand completely. The unannounced electric company sticker shock has left our small apartment community speechless. You can walk up and down the street and certainly not hear the likes of an air conditioner, for example. That said, we have whittled the sky-high bill down quite a lot…I know we are not alone, but I am not sure why these power companies have decided to engage in unannounced gouging. That said, we have turned nearly everything off, will wrap the water heater, move the cooking to a grill outside, and see how much it costs to run two computers and a refrigerator.

Public domain photo by Steve Petteway, photographer for the US Supreme Court, via Wikimedia Commons.

7 Responses to Justice John Paul Stevens Proposes Changes to the Constitution

  1. masonblue says:

    Amazing, this post published without a title. WordPress just came up with a number, wow. Didn’t know that was possible. Anyway, fixed it!

  2. masonblue says:

    For anyone who helped us with this, thank you so much, and we are using even more interventions to keep this astronomical bill as low as possible. The good news is, as I said, we have been able to lower it quite a bit already. This is happening in other places also, turns out:

    http://articles.mcall.com/2014-02-27/news/mc-variable-rate-electric-price-increases-watchdog-20140227_1_power-suppliers-price-gouging-variable-rates

  3. masonblue says:

    Please note- our power is on, and while we were at McDonald’s this morning, we discussed it with a couple of gentlemen. This has not been unique to us. The power company apparently jettisoned its provider, and went with another company, plus added w/construction of a new plant. It is affecting the whole community. It would have been nice to have a heads-up, as opposed to no heads up, in this low income community.

  4. J4TMinATL says:

    The death penalty must be abolished. He brings up a valid point on the right to bear arms. Thanks for sharing this Crane.

    Just posted this on the enough is enough post.

    Since 2007, the CDC has spent less than $100,000 a year on gun focused issues. The measly amount is not used by the CDC for research; instead the money is used to provide a very rough estimate of people injured by guns. Congress with help from the NRA banned CDC from researching gun violence. As you aware, the ATF has been prohibited since 1978 from compiling data on firearms sales. Firearm deaths have NOT been treated and researched as a public health matter like drunk driving is. Vehicle fatalities are down by 36 percent (20 yr period) because our cars and highways are safer as a result of research conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Groups like MADD, law enforcement, education contribute to low numbers.

    “Government resources committed to firearms related research amounted to about 0.0018% of the CDC’s 2013 budget. If firearm deaths constitute roughly 1.3 per cent of all national mortality, it could be argued that the CDC’s budget should have been 722 times larger.” When and if the proposed FY15 $10M is allotted to the CDC for research, questions like how many people are shot by police officers? What about adults who are shot serving in the military? How many of the injuries and/or deaths are crime related? How many are suicides? Which cities and counties of each state accurately report violent crime data to the FBI? The FBI does NOT track the total number of nonfatal gunshot wounds. The CDC’s WISQARS injury database only has limited data from 16 states. DOJ estimates.

    Regarding the impaired driving statistic, it is misleading as this number accounts for all alcohol impaired deaths (drivers and passengers). More than 1.4 M drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. And MADD has never stopped working to lower BAC. Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. Key word- driver. Number of drivers in the U.S. and how often people drive far outweighs the numbers of gun ownership. In 2010, the population was more than 308 million people.

    Changes in economics, demographics, population and health will all have an effect. For example, one would guess that the better the economy is the less suicides we see. I hope one day that we will all know how many people are shot in the U.S each year. We’re nowhere close to knowing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: