Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Civil Rights Movement)   Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens proposes six contitutional amendments that make so much sense they'd probably result in Civil War II   (thenewcivilrightsmovement.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, supreme court justices, Missouri General Assembly, constitutional amendments, sovereign immunity, 1st amendment, Constitution of the United States, Justice Stevens, civil wars  
•       •       •

7970 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2014 at 7:07 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



260 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-06 06:11:30 PM  
HERE:

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 deathpenalty 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.
 
2014-03-06 06:16:24 PM  
And if you have to do them one at a time, do them in the following order: 2, 1, 6, 4, 5, 3.  IMHO.
 
2014-03-06 06:20:09 PM  
1. "and other public officials": seems unnecessary
2. anti-gerrymandering: oh, hell yes
3. campaign finance reform: sure
4. sovereign immunity limitation: ok
5. anti-death penalty: seems unnecessary
6. anti-gun: too broad at best, I'd actively disagree with this one

Anti-gerrymandering would be worth trying (in an alternate world where any possible amendment wasn't just going to be obstructed). Maybe campaign finance.

If the article is accurately presenting these, the drafting is surprisingly bad.
 
2014-03-06 06:24:14 PM  
It would be virtually impossible to get rid of the guns in America and I don't think you have majority on your side in this one.

The other one I'm all for, especially the death penalty one, mostly because it would be fun to see pro lifers defend it.
 
wee
2014-03-06 06:24:59 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: And if you have to do them one at a time, do them in the following order: 2, 1, 6, 4, 5, 3.  IMHO.


Trouble is, #6 won't really change anything.  As long as you're not active military, you can join or organize whatever militia you want.  Or was he thinking only National Guard people and volunteer sheriff's posse members can own firearms?

And #2 can be neutered as easily as a state wants to.

Number 3 is just a completely fantasy.  He might as well have said that every child under age 12 gets a pony.
 
2014-03-06 06:26:55 PM  
Ha, ha. Number 6. Can't stop laughing. Must breathe.

Justice Stevens, I'm not a lawyer but you failed to define militia. That leaves us worse off than before. A militia of every male citizen between 18 and 45 with those older in the reserves? As in a militia of the whole? Include women? Authorize the possession and use of military type weapons, such as mortars, crew served machine guns, etc. by this militia?

Silly liberals, just say the first thing that comes to their authoritarian minds with no thought of the consequences.
 
2014-03-06 06:30:08 PM  
As far as #3 goes, if I'm running for dog catcher what is a "reasonable limit". $1,000? $1,000,00? Who decides?

Its really hard to believe someone this careless about words and their meanings was a SC judge. On second thought, maybe not.
 
2014-03-06 06:31:23 PM  

smells_like_meat: Justice Stevens, I'm not a lawyer but


You should've probably reconsidered your post right about here.  Not that I'm a huge fan of some of those.
 
2014-03-06 06:32:04 PM  
Good luck getting a supermajority of Congress and 38 states to go for any of those.

As for number 6, all able-bodied men ages 17-45 are already in the militia, the unorganized militia. Excluding women is sexist, excluding older people is ageism. I thought liberals were inclusive and tolerant, why does he want to discriminate against so many people?
 
2014-03-06 06:34:53 PM  
Cogent.  Sure to incite the, "Whaaaarrrgarrble".
 
2014-03-06 06:37:50 PM  

smells_like_meat: As far as #3 goes, if I'm running for dog catcher what is a "reasonable limit". $1,000? $1,000,00? Who decides?

Its really hard to believe someone this careless about words and their meanings was a SC judge. On second thought, maybe not.



These are poorly drafted in general, but "reasonable" is something courts have to deal with every farking day and is appropriate in this context. You want an Amendment to the US Constitution to state a principle to be applied, not to put a fixed dollar limit on something or try to get all psychohistory about it.
 
2014-03-06 06:41:37 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: And if you have to do them one at a time, do them in the following order: 2, 1, 6, 4, 5, 3.  IMHO.


I would stick #5 on top
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-06 06:47:29 PM  
Two minor corrections:

4. A state shall not be deemed to have waived sovereign immunity by accepting funds or any other aid from the federal government. Any purported waiver may be rescinded at any time without penalty.

5. The federal courts shall not have jurisdiction to stay or review any sentence of death imposed by a state.

I don't think (1) and (2) would make a difference, the first because it does not change law and the second because Massachusetts' anti-gerrymandering rule has not stopped exactly the kind of behavior it was meant to prevent.
 
2014-03-06 06:48:06 PM  

Relatively Obscure: smells_like_meat: Justice Stevens, I'm not a lawyer but

You should've probably reconsidered your post right about here.  Not that I'm a huge fan of some of those.


Yep, you're right. Only lawyers can understand the English language. Let's leave any interpretation up to our betters. I'll be out picking cotton if you need to reach me.
 
2014-03-06 06:56:37 PM  
While I like the concept behind 2, in reality it'll just mean every ten years you get 5 years worth of litigation over whether or not the new lines are "rational."

If I were writing 2, I'd say something like "Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be composed of contiguous territory. The state shall appoint a committee with an equal number of disctrictors appointed from each party represented in state government. If, after a year, the committee cannot approve a districting map, a computer algorithm will draw districts with the simplest geometry."

3 should happen for reals, though.
 
2014-03-06 06:58:50 PM  

wee: Benevolent Misanthrope: And if you have to do them one at a time, do them in the following order: 2, 1, 6, 4, 5, 3.  IMHO.

Trouble is, #6 won't really change anything.  As long as you're not active military, you can join or organize whatever militia you want.  Or was he thinking only National Guard people and volunteer sheriff's posse members can own firearms?

And #2 can be neutered as easily as a state wants to.

Number 3 is just a completely fantasy.  He might as well have said that every child under age 12 gets a pony.


Yep.  Everybody alive gets Grandfathered in, then check a box at the DMV, voter registration, or your state tax return: "Do you want to join the South Carolina militia?" Y/N
 
2014-03-06 07:00:41 PM  
I'm cool with them all. Would clear up some dangling issues we are stuck with until we amend our Constitution.

/Supposed to be a living document.
 
2014-03-06 07:01:43 PM  

smells_like_meat: Ha, ha. Number 6. Can't stop laughing. Must breathe.

Justice Stevens,I'm not a lawyer but you failed to define militia. That leaves us worse off than before. A militia of every male citizen between 18 and 45 with those older in the reserves? As in a militia of the whole? Include women? Authorize the possession and use of military type weapons, such as mortars, crew served machine guns, etc. by this militia?

Silly liberals, just say the first thing that comes to their authoritarian minds with no thought of the consequences.

 
2014-03-06 07:02:23 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: smells_like_meat: Ha, ha. Number 6. Can't stop laughing. Must breathe.

Justice Stevens,I'm not a lawyer but you failed to define militia. That leaves us worse off than before. A militia of every male citizen between 18 and 45 with those older in the reserves? As in a militia of the whole? Include women? Authorize the possession and use of military type weapons, such as mortars, crew served machine guns, etc. by this militia?

Silly liberals, just say the first thing that comes to their authoritarian minds with no thought of the consequences.


Damn! I tried to get you to say "Ha, ha I'm a silly tard" by greying it out. I'll go back to troll school.
 
2014-03-06 07:04:25 PM  
Trying to decide which (between Gerrymandering, death penalty, and the vague as fark militia one) would be the biggest waste of time in trying to pass, because of the psychos that would come out of the woodwork to defend them until said amendments were dead.

Let's face it, people.  We are completely fractured nation, because of how diverse our roots are.  It's why we can't agree on jack farking shiat in Congress.  It's to the point that a crazy kid shot up a farking elementary school and all it did was make the pro- and anti-gun nuts lose their little minds.   It didn't unite anything.

There's a reason that Europe, a continent about 1,000,000 square miles larger than this country is made up of 50 countries and well over that many ethnicities.
 
2014-03-06 07:07:57 PM  
Not that I dislike Stevens or these ideas, but there's really no reason to think that a USSC Justice has any extra insight when it comes to pure policy questions compared to anyone else. And that's really what these issues are, pure policy.
 
2014-03-06 07:14:30 PM  
No
 
2014-03-06 07:15:11 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: If the article is accurately presenting these, the drafting is surprisingly bad.


The amendments are concise and clearly written. There is nothing seriously wrong with their drafting.
 
2014-03-06 07:15:22 PM  
gifatron.com
 
2014-03-06 07:15:28 PM  
2 is the only one I really like, but even then it seems unworkable.
 
2014-03-06 07:17:32 PM  
Can someone explain the purpose of #1? What is the value add for that one. Doesn't the supremacy clause cover this?
 
2014-03-06 07:17:36 PM  
So basically repeal the 1st, 2nd and 10th amendments at a minimum.

You"re confirming all of our suspicions that your base call us tinfoil hat paranoid for having, Judge.
 
2014-03-06 07:19:50 PM  

FriarReb98: Trying to decide which (between Gerrymandering, death penalty, and the vague as fark militia one) would be the biggest waste of time in trying to pass, because of the psychos that would come out of the woodwork to defend them until said amendments were dead.

Let's face it, people.  We are completely fractured nation, because of how diverse our roots are.  It's why we can't agree on jack farking shiat in Congress.  It's to the point that a crazy kid shot up a farking elementary school and all it did was make the pro- and anti-gun nuts lose their little minds.   It didn't unite anything.

There's a reason that Europe, a continent about 1,000,000 square miles larger than this country is made up of 50 countries and well over that many ethnicities.


FYI, Europe is only ~43,000 mi2 larger than the US.
 
2014-03-06 07:21:22 PM  

cchris_39: So basically repeal the 1st, 2nd and 10th amendments at a minimum.


If that's what you got out of that list then you are really, really bad at reading.
 
2014-03-06 07:21:22 PM  

DamnYankees: Can someone explain the purpose of #1? What is the value add for that one. Doesn't the supremacy clause cover this?


I read it as an anti-nullification amendment, which is completely unnecessary anyway since nullification isn't valid in the first place.
 
2014-03-06 07:22:31 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: cchris_39: So basically repeal the 1st, 2nd and 10th amendments at a minimum.

If that's what you got out of that list then you are really, really bad at reading.


You're surprised?
 
2014-03-06 07:22:33 PM  
Except for the last two, I agree with him.

Enact all but the last two and there would be no civil war.
 
2014-03-06 07:23:35 PM  

cchris_39: So basically repeal the 1st, 2nd and 10th amendments at a minimum.

You"re confirming all of our suspicions that your base call us tinfoil hat paranoid for having, Judge.


Ummm...  or you could just be acting all tinfoil hat paranoid again.  The one related to the 2nd does kind of nerf it, but do you really think the writers of the constitution intended US citizens to be able to carry around and conceal weapons that could kill over a dozen other citizens as part of what they were going for with the 2nd amendment?

The others are just good governance.
 
2014-03-06 07:23:59 PM  

sprgrss: DamnYankees: Can someone explain the purpose of #1? What is the value add for that one. Doesn't the supremacy clause cover this?

I read it as an anti-nullification amendment, which is completely unnecessary anyway since nullification isn't valid in the first place.


On second thought, I also see this as overturning Printz and New York v. United States.
 
2014-03-06 07:24:11 PM  
Let's put it to a national vote.  It'd give us something to do.
 
2014-03-06 07:25:46 PM  

walktoanarcade: Enact all but the last two and there would be no civil war.


I dunno... the "STATES' RIGHTS!!!" crowd would hate the first and the fourth.  2 and 3 wouldn't come close to even passing a bare minority in the house.
 
2014-03-06 07:26:19 PM  
There is no need to mess with the language of the Second Amendment. All we need to do is apply incorporation doctrine correctly, reverse the judicial abortion that is the McDonald decision, and we're cool.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: If the article is accurately presenting these, the drafting is surprisingly bad.


Not familiar with Mr. Justice Stevens' notorious word salad, I take it? I remember a parody opinion I read in law school, in which "Stevens" said "I reject the majority's conclusion, but I disagree with their reasoning; therefore, I concur."
 
2014-03-06 07:27:16 PM  
Why did this guy retire again?
 
2014-03-06 07:27:40 PM  
You couldn't get an amendment that states "Hereby let it be known that a puppy licking ice cream off of a child's face is cute" passed right now. So the rest if his ideas are just as moot as Mark Levin's terrible amendments.
 
2014-03-06 07:27:41 PM  

Mercutio74: cchris_39: So basically repeal the 1st, 2nd and 10th amendments at a minimum.

You"re confirming all of our suspicions that your base call us tinfoil hat paranoid for having, Judge.

Ummm...  or you could just be acting all tinfoil hat paranoid again.  The one related to the 2nd does kind of nerf it, but do you really think the writers of the constitution intended US citizens to be able to carry around and conceal weapons that could kill over a dozen other citizens as part of what they were going for with the 2nd amendment?

The others are just good governance.


Of course they did. They didn't want government agents running around with weapons that could kill dozens running around unopposed.
 
2014-03-06 07:27:45 PM  
The second amendment as rewritten by Justice Stevens as the right to bear arms only while serving in a militia wouldn't be a right at all. You can't have an unarmed militia, so calling it a right when it's a necessity is strange.
 
2014-03-06 07:28:01 PM  

Mercutio74: cchris_39: So basically repeal the 1st, 2nd and 10th amendments at a minimum.

You"re confirming all of our suspicions that your base call us tinfoil hat paranoid for having, Judge.

Ummm...  or you could just be acting all tinfoil hat paranoid again.  The one related to the 2nd does kind of nerf it, but do you really think the writers of the constitution intended US citizens to be able to carry around and conceal weapons that could kill over a dozen other citizens as part of what they were going for with the 2nd amendment?

The others are just good governance.


Not really.  As pointed out up-thread, "militia" is not defined within the amendment or document so it's absurdly easy to circumvent.
 
2014-03-06 07:28:34 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: cchris_39: So basically repeal the 1st, 2nd and 10th amendments at a minimum.

If that's what you got out of that list then you are really, really bad at reading.


He said "basically" like people use "literally" nowadays... the opposite of its meaning.
 
2014-03-06 07:29:48 PM  

DamnYankees: Can someone explain the purpose of #1? What is the value add for that one. Doesn't the supremacy clause cover this?


You know, it's hard explaining to people how "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech" binds a municipal police officer from enforcing a poorly written local ordinance purporting to ban, for example, hate speech. The police officer isn't Congress. Neither is the city nor the state government. Neither, for that matter, is the president.

To a lot of people, ideas like the "state action" doctrine just seem pulled out of thin air. I can't blame people for thinking that. On the plain, literal words of the Constitution, there is no clear reason why the president can't order federal agents to bust up some embarrassing war protestors near the White House.

I don't know for sure. But I wonder if Stevens had something like that problem in mind. If he did, I wonder why he didn't address the 1st Amendment.
 
2014-03-06 07:30:28 PM  
1-4 are fine.  Not so sure about 5 and 6.
 
2014-03-06 07:30:30 PM  
On the gun amendment, are we going to go back to the historical definition of militia being every able-bodied male over the age of 18?

If so, I get to keep my guns and women will have to turn theirs in.
 
2014-03-06 07:30:31 PM  

BMulligan: There is no need to mess with the language of the Second Amendment. All we need to do is apply incorporation doctrine correctly, reverse the judicial abortion that is the McDonald decision, and we're cool.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: If the article is accurately presenting these, the drafting is surprisingly bad.

Not familiar with Mr. Justice Stevens' notorious word salad, I take it? I remember a parody opinion I read in law school, in which "Stevens" said "I reject the majority's conclusion, but I disagree with their reasoning; therefore, I concur."


Yes, the 2nd amendment is the only collective right in the constitution, protecting the right of the government to arm it's military. After all, their is such a plight across the world of nations disarming their military. We gotta keep the government from disarming our troops!
 
2014-03-06 07:30:41 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: 1. "and other public officials": seems unnecessary
2. anti-gerrymandering: oh, hell yes
3. campaign finance reform: sure
4. sovereign immunity limitation: ok
5. anti-death penalty: seems unnecessary
6. anti-gun: too broad at best, I'd actively disagree with this one

Anti-gerrymandering would be worth trying (in an alternate world where any possible amendment wasn't just going to be obstructed). Maybe campaign finance.

If the article is accurately presenting these, the drafting is surprisingly bad.


1. may seem unnecessary, but it isn't.
I don't like the language in 2. but I agree with the concept.
3. and 4. are good.
5. is too narrow. nearly every part of our criminal justice system counts as cruel and unusual punishment, IMO. It needs to clarify what "cruel and unusual" means, rather than give specific examples.
6. is right out. I'd rewrite the Second if I could to include what I consider to be "common sense restrictions" but nobody who uses the words seems to have any common sense to me.
 
2014-03-06 07:31:48 PM  
Its, damn you auto correct
 
2014-03-06 07:34:04 PM  

Mercutio74: walktoanarcade: Enact all but the last two and there would be no civil war.

I dunno... the "STATES' RIGHTS!!!" crowd would hate the first and the fourth.  2 and 3 wouldn't come close to even passing a bare minority in the house.


I think you're right on all counts, sadly.  Maybe the first one isn't perfect, but the alternative looks worse, especially on the hot topics.
 
Displayed 50 of 260 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report