This Mo****F***er!!! Was a "Justice" of the SCOTUS

[aGameOfThrones]

The liveliest (and oldest) former member of the U.S. Supreme Court is at it again. John Paul Stevens, 93, served on the highest court in the land for an impressive 35 years, from 1975 until his retirement in June 2010. Known for his bow ties, brilliant legal mind, and striking transformation from Midwest Republican conservative to hero of the political left, Stevens remains an intellectual force to reckon with. In his latest book, the forthcoming Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, he offers a half-dozen stimulating ideas for altering, and he would say improving, our foundational legal document. Today, let’s consider his most controversial proposal: changing the Second Amendment. Stevens is not going to win any friends at the National Rifle Association, because his undisguised agenda is to make it easier to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms.

With exquisitely awkward 18th century syntax, the Second Amendment states:


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.

For a couple of centuries, you might be surprised to learn, the Supreme Court didn’t say exactly what the Second Amendment means. As far as Stevens can tell, “federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by the 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.” He recalls a colorful remark on the topic by the late Warren Burger, who served as chief justice from 1969 to 1986. Responding to the NRA’s lobbying campaign opposing gun control laws in the name of Second Amendment rights, Burger, a lifelong conservative, remarked during a television interview in 1991 that the amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat, fraud—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Strong stuff. Times change, though, and so do constitutional interpretations. In 2008, Stevens was on the losing end of a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark ruling in which the high court, in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, for the first time declared that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense. In 2010, by another 5-4 vote, the justices extended Heller to apply to state and local governments.

Stevens dissented with characteristic eloquence in both cases. But he lost, and in the process, the conservative majority struck down laws in Washington, D.C., and Chicago that effectively banned civilian ownership of handguns. Those decisions are rippling through the legal system, and it will take some years before it’s clear whether gun rights advocates will succeed in using Heller to knock down other regulations, short of across-the-board bans.

Reflecting on these developments, Stevens makes several important points: Heller did not by its own terms preclude federal, state, or local governments from restricting the ownership of the sorts of large-capacity weapons used in mass shootings in Connecticut, Virginia, Colorado, and Arizona in recent years. That Congress failed to act is a function of elective politics and lobbying, not constitutional law. Stevens also observes that whether one thinks Heller was right or wrong, the decision had the effect of shifting the ultimate power to determine the validity of gun control laws from elected politicians to life-tenured federal judges.

Since Stevens believes that the authors of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states—as opposed to homeowners’ anxiety about violent felons—he thinks the best way to fix the situation is to amend the Second Amendment. He’d do that by adding five words as follows:


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.

To support the change, he argues: “Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/gun-control-and-the-constitution-should-we-amend-the-second-amendment?campaign_id=yhoo

[RonPaulFanInGA]

High school textbooks have already rewritten the Second Amendment:

http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/04160E9CCD6B405ABE832FB368757512.jpg

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/18/School-Textbook-Changes-Constitution

[LibertyEagle]

High school textbooks have already rewritten the Second Amendment:

http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/04160E9CCD6B405ABE832FB368757512.jpg

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/18/School-Textbook-Changes-Constitution

That's f'ing sickening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn. We need to fight this.

[klamath]

That's f'ing sickening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn. We need to fight this.This has been going on a long time. When my dad was a teacher he got teachers edition text books. One written in 1967 specifically told the teachers to explain to the students that the second amendment meant only for militias. There was no individual right.

[Anti Federalist]

Black robed tyrants gonna tyrannize.

[Anti Federalist]

Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution

I'm curious to see what this doddering old fool has to say about "improving" those.

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe his supply of fetal grindings will run out.



The worst decision of Justice Stevens

Apr 14th 2010, 21:28 by Lexington

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/04/kelo_john_paul_stevenss_worst_decision

IN A long and distinguished career, Justice Stevens wrote many decisions that I applaud. I liked his sceptical attitude towards prosecutors, and though I don't agree with him that the death penalty is unconstitutional, I would certainly agree with him that it should be abolished.

But his opinion in Kelo v New London (2005) was simply terrible. The case was about a private developer in New London, Connecticut, who wanted to raze some waterfront homes to build an office block and some posh apartments. The owners didn't want to sell. The city decided to force them to, calculating that the new development would create jobs and yield more taxes.

The city decided to use the power of "eminent domain". Under the 5th amendment, the government may seize private property only in exceptional circumstances. The land seized must be put to “public use”, and “just compensation” must be paid. “Public use” has traditionally been taken to mean something like a public highway. Roads would obviously be much harder to build if a single homeowner could hold out forever or for excessive compensation. The government's powers of “eminent domain” have also been used to clean up blighted slums.

In this case, however, the area was not blighted, and the land was not going to be put to a public use, so the seizure was plainly unlawful. Amazingly, Justice Stevens--and a slim majority of the court--said it was fine. Rejecting “any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ...public”, he said it was enough that the seizure should serve some vaguely defined “public purpose”—such as those new taxes.

This massively expanded the government's power of eminent domain. “The spectre of condemnation hangs over all property,” fumed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in dissent. “Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

She was right. I went to Ardmore, Pennsylvania shortly afterwards and spoke to some shopkeepers whose shops were about to be bulldozed to make way for yuppie condos.

Fortunately, Kelo was such an awful decision that it provoked a backlash. Here's what I wrote a year later:

The ruling had two effects. First, it told local governments and their developer chums that working-class neighbourhoods were up for grabs. In the year after Kelo, the Institute for Justice, a group that defends property rights, counted 5,783 homes, businesses, churches and other properties condemned or threatened with eminent domain to the benefit of a private party. Dana Berliner, an attorney for the institute, says that as far as she knows, no farms have been slated to be turned into factories, but that other than that, Justice O'Connor's prediction is holding up well.

But second, Kelo provoked a backlash. Most Americans are repelled by the idea that the state might take your house and give it to Donald Trump. (This is not rhetoric: New Jersey once tried, unsuccessfully, to seize someone's home because The Donald needed somewhere to park limousines outside one of his casinos.) Since the Kelo ruling, no fewer than 34 states have passed laws or constitutional amendments aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent domain. At the mid-term elections, voters in ten states approved measures curbing politicians' power to seize private property, all by wide margins. Only two ballot initiatives failed, in California and Idaho, and that because they clearly went too far. Re-worded, they could easily pass.

Public revulsion against such seizures is visceral and nearly uniform: polls find between 85% and 95% of Americans are opposed to them. Political affiliation makes no difference. Republicans hate to see property rights violated and individuals bullied by the state. Democrats hate to see the state's coercive power hired out to big corporations, and worry, correctly, that the chief victims of eminent domain abuse will be the working class and ethnic minorities.

The backlash may end up strengthening property rights.... Just as the courts keep tabs on Congress and the executive, striking down unconstitutional laws and constantly reminding the president that he is subject to the rest, so too can Congress, the states and ultimately the people curb the excesses of the Supreme Court. Kelo v New London was a terrible decision. But most states have now neutered it, and more will doubtless follow. Three governors (all Democrats, as it happens) have vetoed laws curbing eminent-domain abuse. But Tom Vilsack in Iowa, a presidential hopeful, was overruled by a super-majority of state lawmakers, and Janet Napolitano in Arizona was overruled by voters. In the struggle between the people and the powerful, the powerful do not always win.

[Origanalist]

Black robed tyrants gonna tyrannize.

Sauron's minions, The Nine.

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120225164351/lotr/images/f/f6/Nine_Kings_of_Men.png

[FindLiberty]

Oh noes, sale of those little shiny magnet balls have been banned...

Photo reported. (lol, the guy on the right lost his!)

[erowe1]

It is a terrible change to the amendment.

If I understand my own state's constitution, though, all people over 17 are continuously serving in the militia, whether actively or inactively. I wonder how many other states have definitions like that, or if there would be a way to interpret "militia" in the 2nd amendment not to include all of us anyway.

[Brian4Liberty]

Time to dust this off again...


Here's what they do believe in: they believe in a vast legal system, where all laws are open to debate and litigation. A system where any position can be defended or attacked on a "legal" basis. A system where the most powerful generally get their way, regardless of the letter or intent of the law. A system where anything can be justified. A system which enables power to reside with those with the most knowledge of the law, and how to use and manipulate it. A system where maximum employment is enjoyed for all those who desire to support, sustain and profit from the legal system.

They believe in no law at all, expertly disguised as a society fully enveloped in law.

The Constitution is the worst sort of law for them. It's far too clear, simple and supreme. The best law in their eyes is ambiguous, convoluted, complex and with no priorities at all.

[Brian4Liberty]

It is a terrible change to the amendment.

If I understand my own state's constitution, though, all people over 17 are continuously serving in the militia, whether actively or inactively. I wonder how many other states have definitions like that, or if there would be a way to interpret "militia" in the 2nd amendment not to include all of us anyway.

I believe you are correct. My understanding of the term "militia" is that it is the opposite of "military". All able bodied citizens are the "militia". If you are in the military, you are no longer militia. On other words, the "militia" is "the people". There is no such thing as "when serving in the militia".

The only way to not be in the militia is to be in the military. Do they want to implement new gun controls on the military? That's the only people his reworded Amendment would effect.

[klamath]

I believe you are correct. My understanding of the term "militia" is that it is the opposite of "military". All able bodied citizens are the "militia". If you are in the military, you are no longer militia. On other words, the "militia" is "the people". There is no such thing as "when serving in the militia".

The only way to not be in the militia is to be in the military. Do they want to implement new gun controls on the military? That's the only people his reworded Amendment would effect.Ah but to him it means you leave your arms in the armory when you are done drilling even if you own it.

[Pericles]

Let me say this about that: I've got your Second Amendment right here

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt317/Pericles-photo/2Aineffect_zps49914738.jpg

[unknown]

"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."

Get rid of the Militia garbage altogether. Keep it simple.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

[moostraks]

I think they are missing the primary concept "being necessary to the security of a free state". I would think that is the primary concern and the right of "the people to keep and bear arms" is not the right of the state but of the people. It is the right of the people to protect themselves from infringement, by any source, of their status as free beings. Seems counter intuitive to me that one must be a slave of the state (military member) in order to protect one's free status.

[aGameOfThrones]

"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."

Get rid of the Militia garbage altogether. Keep it simple.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."


"A well regulated Police and Military, being necessary to the security of a Police State and Empire, the privilege of the people to keep and bear arms shall be enforced."

[oyarde]

It is a terrible change to the amendment.

If I understand my own state's constitution, though, all people over 17 are continuously serving in the militia, whether actively or inactively. I wonder how many other states have definitions like that, or if there would be a way to interpret "militia" in the 2nd amendment not to include all of us anyway.
Article 12 . I never understood why it did not just say 18 , instead of over 17 ......

[Acala]

I would also vote to amend it thusly: The right of the people to own, construct, buy, sell, and carry any arms shall not be infringed and any government official who proposes or votes in favor of any law or regulation that infringes in the slightest degree the rights protected by this amendment shall be outside the protection of all law.

[Deborah K]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/gun-control-and-the-constitution-should-we-amend-the-second-amendment?campaign_id=yhoo

Federalist Paper No. 46!!!! Geeeeez!

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

[Pericles]

I think they are missing the primary concept "being necessary to the security of a free state". I would think that is the primary concern and the right of "the people to keep and bear arms" is not the right of the state but of the people. It is the right of the people to protect themselves from infringement, by any source, of their status as free beings. Seems counter intuitive to me that one must be a slave of the state (military member) in order to protect one's free status.

But if your starting point is the security of the state, rather than the securing of freedom to the people, the text reads differently to you.