Skip to main content

The One Legal Book Everyone Should Read This Summer






wikimedia commons
official portrait


My household is abuzz over retired Justice John Paul Stevens' book, Six Amendments: How And Why We Should Change the Constitution. (Little, Brown & Co.) Run, don't walk to your nearest bookstore or Amazon, and plunk down the $20 or so it will take to buy it.


This is a first. This is the first time a retired Supreme Court Justice has published a manifesto, if you will, on our Constitution. And in my humble opinion, this book, while short, opens a much needed dialogue on the need for Constitutional change by amendment in this county.


The book is short and covers a number of topics, campaign finance, gerrymandering and perhaps the most important, and most controversial, the death penalty and the right to bear arms.


Stevens would add words to the Second Amendment to read, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed."


He writes:


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.


[For 200 years], federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by the [2nd Amendment] 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.


Going further, Justice Stevens repeats the comment from Chief Justice Warren Burger (1969-1986), about the gun-lobby's campaign to oppose gun control laws because of Second Amendment rights:


“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.” [quoting Burger]


He would also end the death penalty, adding it to the prohibitions on "excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment."


In addition, he proposes the legalization of marijuana. And while this is is some ways less controversial than the right to bear arms, for many, it continues to be a hot button issue,


The process of amending our Constitution is an arduous one.It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress or state legislatures to propose an amendment and three-fourths of the legislatures to approve it.


Appointed to the Supreme Court by President Gerald Ford in 1975, Stevens was considered to be a moderate in his views. In fact, On the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, John Paul Stevens had a moderately conservative record. Over the his term as Justice, the Supreme Court moved toward the right so much that by his retirement, Stevens was considered by many to be a liberal. However, as late as 2007, when asked, Stevens still considered himself to be a judicial conservative.


Agree or disagree, Justice Stevens opens the door further discussion on these issues at a time when for many, these issues are in the forefront of family discussion. As we seek to make our own opinions known, it is important to become as educated as possible on these issues to add something of value to the conversation beyond the usual bluster.



copyright/all rights reserved Audrey Howitt 2014

Comments

  1. When they get out guns they get us next. Terry Chestnutt

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

I am so happy that you stopped by. If you leave a comment, I will try to reciprocate and visit your blog as well.

Popular posts from this blog

The Difference Between Mediation and Arbitration

The Morgue File So you need to resolve a legal dispute and must make a choice between these two alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, While the basic differences between mediation and arbitration lie in methodology, these differences may also affect the ultimate outcome of your dispute. Therefore, it is helpful to know not only the basic differences but also the pros and cons of those differences. In the most basic language, a mediation is a settlement while an arbitration is a decision on the merits of the case. While both are considered alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in that both avoid a full trial, including the costs of the trial, you must prepare for each differently. In a mediation, both sides of a dispute meet with a mediator who attempts to broker a settlement of the matter. It is usually more informal than an arbitration and also less costly . Usually, mediation is a good tool to use in situations where the parties are not too far apart in their ...

First, Kill Off All The Lawyers

Shakespeare said it best. Lawyers get a bad rap for good reasons. They are hugely expensive, they deal in an area of life we either don't want to touch or feel we can't deal with, and sometimes, they are money grubbing scumbags. So why do we need them, or do we. They answer is . .well maybe! I know that isn't what we most want to hear. But law is a complicated business and most of us just don't want to have to go there in our daily lives. Not only that, but legal minutia can drive a person crazy. Have you ever tried looking at a statute? Here is is really good example of statutory construction that is just mind boggling for the non-attorney, California Probate Code Section 13101: 13101. (a) To collect money, receive tangible personal property, or have evidences of a debt, obligation, interest, right, security, or chose in action transferred under this chapter, an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state shall be furnished to the...

Read before you sign

wikimedia commons  Corunna Coal Company 1890 Union Contract We live in a society that values orderliness. We like to know whose turn it is to proceed when we reach a four-way stop. We like to know what to expect in a given situation. This is the benefit that law can provide us. We like to know what is expected of us. If A, then B. If A happens before D, C happens. If no A, no B, etc. We enter into contracts all the time. Today, as never before, our lives are lived in an online world. We sign up for a service online. We buy products online. We "agree" to the terms of service without ever reading them.  We sign a document placed before us without reading it. We bind ourselves to unknown terms. We enter into contracts blindly. In California, and in other states. If you have signed it, you are deemed to have read it. That means you cannot plead ignorance to the contents of any document you sign. If you have signed it, if you have agreed to its terms by "click...