Six New Constitutional Amendments from Retired Justice John Paul Stevens.
Here are Justice Stevens’ six great ideas for constitutional amendments:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
The 2nd Amendment one will never happen. It would involve Civil War, I’d imagine. Indeed, if such an Amendment was ratified by the Congress, the President and 3/4ths of the states, Civil War would still happen. I’d imagine Civil War would result from the anti-State’s Rights amendments too.
I’m for all of it.
SB 48, with House Amendment 2 ‘placed with the bill’, is before the House Administration Committee. I have requested that it to be heard at an upcoming committee meeting.
That Gerrymandering amendment sucks. “Compact” is a term used today to examine districts, but it’s so vague that it’s meaningless. Non-partisan or bust.
I don’t agree with any of them, but it is refreshingly honest that Justice Stevens is finally advocating an honest and legitimate approach to changing the Constitution instead of just misinterpretating it.
To be clear, the Sovereign Immunity Amendments are clarifying amendments. Federal law is already the supreme law of the land, superior to state law. All state officials must obey federal law or be in violation of it. And the 2nd Amendment, as written now, is open to two legitimate interpretations, hence the conflict now. And, David, I am sure you agree that death is a cruel and unusual punishment. The change there is just to make that crystal clear so that even Sarah Palin understands. The Campaign Finance Amendment is to undo a clear conservative misinterpretation of the First Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment amendment is problematic in that Justice Stevens commits pretty much the same vocabulary error with regard to “well-regulated” that most people do. “Regulated” in 18th Century English, used in a military sense, did not refer in any way to state control, but was used where today we would use the term “drilled.” It comes from the many manuals of “regulations” that were in use at the time.
The key provision is “free State”; Hamilton argues in the Federalist about the importance of keeping the militia as an armed force under State not Federal control, to alleviate any potential need for a “standing army,” and (he says so fairly bluntly) to keep the Federal government from having sufficient military forces to become dictatorial.
Instead of his campaign finance amendment I would prefer a corporate personhood limitation (individuals and not business organizations have rights) that explicitly reverses Citizens United by stating that campaign donations do not equal free speech and are not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Agree, Steve. I am with you on the Citizens United Amendment approach. And on the second amendment, I fear that it can never be changed. Too much of a flash point. Gun violence (and the resultant needless death and destruction) will just be our country’s cross to bear.
But, if we are going to amend the second amendment, I would rather do this:
“Each citizen has the right to own common non military firearms, such as rifles, handguns, muskets, and shotguns, subject to reasonable provisions and regulations established by Congress and state and local governments. A citizen does not have the right to the ownership of military weaponry, such as machine guns, automatic weapons, grenades, missiles, or other explosive devices or weaponry.”
Fucking lawyers. Always writing dictates with so much vague or indefinite language, not to mention overlapping run-on lists, that they can just make up the meaning when it is all put to a test and “interpreted”.
Stevens’ suggested amendments are so sloppy and full of bullshit wiggle words I am very glad he is no longer on the Court.
🙂 Hi y’all!
The proposed Second Amendment provision is both useless and dishonest: members of the “militia,” if either the National Guard or the Army Reserve is meant, are not allowed to bring their government-issued weapons home anyway. If they are armed, they are on duty. If former Justice Stevens wishes to remove the right to keep and bear arms from the public in general, he ought to be honest enough to simply call for repeal of the Second Amendment.
Of course, the sovereign immunity amendment poses a problem you might not have anticipated: under it, if the federal government orders state law enforcement in Colorado to enforce the federal laws concerning possession of marijuana, they would have to comply.
I’m for all of it, that and making study of the real constitution, as opposed to the newly minted Republican version, mandatory in grade school.