John Paul Stevens: "Repeal the 2nd Amendment"

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

ligonierbill

New member
The retired Supreme Court justice is being quoted in news reports advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment. My take: Never forget that this is the goal of many. And all of our rights are just a couple judges away from gone.

It will be interesting to see if any of the "common sense" gun law folks reject this and reaffirm the Bill of Rights.
 
ligonierbill said:
The retired Supreme Court justice is being quoted in news reports advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment. My take: Never forget that this is the goal of many. And all of our rights are just a couple judges away from gone.

It will be interesting to see if any of the "common sense" gun law folks reject this and reaffirm the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


I can't remember which U.S. Supreme Court justice said this but he advocated ruling on moral (non-legal) issues and that the American people wanted the court to do this.
 
Actually I prefer this to be the tactic taken. It acknowledges the power of the amendment while advocating for an approach that takes tremendous and widespread support which is unlikely to actually occur. Further it is a Constitutional approach and not some end run around it.
 
ATN said:
I can't remember which U.S. Supreme Court justice said this but he advocated ruling on moral (non-legal) issues and that the American people wanted the court to do this.
Click to expand...

Bork was a critic of what he called the Olympian project, the process whereby elite orthodoxy is introduced to we the unwashed and enforced by the Court.

I think JPS's pronouncement will draw little comment as a matter of charity. It's a weak analysis. The 2d Am. needs to be repealed because it has been misread by the Sup Ct. He thinks the amendment only covers what we now call the National Guard. He thinks repeal will be the simple fix for this problem.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...eme-court-justice-repeal-the-second-amendment
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo

Old news - the clip shows Berger, a Conservative Republican denouncing the 2nd Amend.

You make a great mistake if you think that justices decide purely on the law. They decide based on their personal belief structures and then look for legal precedents in many cases. Now someone will complain about this analysis. Too bad.
 
ATN said:
Is this what passes for upholding he U.S. Constitution? Depressing...
Click to expand...

Stevens did write a dissenting opinion in Heller. His announcement can't have been a surprise to anyone.

I'd also echo Lohamn. The amendment process Stevens recommends above to get to the policy he prefers is constitutionally correct.
 
Last edited:
A bill to repeal the 2nd Amendment has been introduced into Congress in virtually every session for decades now. Lots of bills to do stupid things are introduced every congressional session. Far too many do get traction, some even get passed.

To date, none of the "repeal the 2nd" bill has ever gone anywhere, and has never even made it to floor discussion.

Other than an "oh look,..they're at it again.." no one pays any attention to those bills.

(legal eagles, correct me if I'm wrong, please) I don't think Congress can repeal any Constitutional amendment. I think it takes another amendment to repeal a previous one. I believe the most that Congress can do is to propose an amendment to repeal a previous one, and it would have to be ratified by the states before it would have any effect.

SO a bill to repeal the 2nd amendment is just so much hot air.
 
Not going to happen...that ex-judge should be listed as anti American because that's about as far away and or the opposite of our constitution you can get.
 
44AMP said:
I don't think Congress can repeal any Constitutional amendment. I think it takes another amendment to repeal a previous one. I believe the most that Congress can do is to propose an amendment to repeal a previous one, and it would have to be ratified by the states before it would have any effect.

SO a bill to repeal the 2nd amendment is just so much hot air.
Click to expand...

It isn't just Congress; a supermajority of states need to ratify it as well. Lohman's point was that Stevens at least described the correct method for altering the COTUS.
 
Here are the details of the process for altering the Constitution, either to add an amendment or to repeal one, from Article V:
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.​
In other words, there are two ways to do it - the first is initiated by Congress, which must pass a bill proposing an alteration. This requires a two-thirds majority in both House and Senate. If such a bill is passed, the matter is then passed to state legislatures. Three quarters of them need to ratify the proposed change in order for it to take effect. There's no time limit on the ratification process; it can and does drag on for years.

The second way to change the Constitution is initiated by the states, not by Congress. It requires two thirds of the state legislatures to pass bills calling for a constitutional convention. Again, any amendments coming out of that process must still be ratified by three fourths of the states.

The take-home message is that it's a very difficult thing to do -- as it should be.
 
Not going to happen...that ex-judge should be listed as anti American because that's about as far away and or the opposite of our constitution you can get.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make him anti-American. The Constitution itself makes provision for adding and repealing amendments. Advocating for either does not make one anti-American.
 
It has been done. The 18th Amendment established prohibition (of alcoholic beverages). It was ratified in 1919. A few years later, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. The 21st was ratified in 1933.
 
Moving this to be a true amendment battle only favors us. Right now we are fighting "death by a thousand cuts" where even when we "win" we only manage to hold our ground and we watch the rights slip further and further away.

If we "move" the battle into that of a Constitutional amendment it is much harder for our opponents to win. It requires a super majority in Congress (or of the states) and an even larger majority of the states individually. Each state has one vote which eliminates the population advantages of states like California and New York. You would need 38 states so you only need 13 opposed to prevent it. Considering the movement of individual states towards shall issue permits or permitless carry you are simply not going to get it.

Let's encourage those who favor further and further restriction to push for an amendment. It is after all the proper way to change our rules of governance anyways.
 
that ex-judge should be listed as anti American because that's about as far away and or the opposite of our constitution you can get.
Click to expand...


That statement just might be the most un-American thing I think I've read on here yet.
 
Lohman said:
Let's encourage those who favor further and further restriction to push for an amendment. It is after all the proper way to change our rules of governance anyways.
Click to expand...

I'm just old enough to remember feminists trying that.

ERA said:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Click to expand...

It was easier for them to win a lot of legislative fights over time that it was to try to ratify one loopy talisman.
 
That doesn't make him anti-American. The Constitution itself makes provision for adding and repealing amendments. Advocating for either does not make one anti-American.
Click to expand...

Thank you, well said.

I both agree that the Constitutions should be hard to amend, and I believe its time the 2nd Amendment be scrutinized.

I know I am in a serious minority.

1. I believe the 2nd was an overreach of philosophy as opposed to evidence that armed militia or a single armed individual is going to do anything about government.

2. Technology has changed beyond their ability to envision. Gun owners were accountable people, guns were expensive. Ability of a single person to wreck mayhem with a single shot gun was severely limited.

3. The 2nd amendment has been hijacked to protect the second amendment, not it intent of protecting the rest of the rights. You hear no comments about freedom of speech, press, association, simply to have a gun to protect the right to have a gun.

4. The drive of high production mfg to make profits by selling lots of guns has dumped huge numbers of guns into the system. Rather than safer they are more accessible to anyone from criminals to legal gun owners who do not have their guns locked up and get stolen and then into criminal enterprise. We had a gun shop break in that they are still tracking all the guns that wound up in felons hands. Most not accounted for yet. Those that are were used in various crimes and one killing.

5. While I never thought I would in the past, I am an advocate of being licensed, serial number and required to be in a safe of the AR and smaller semi auto (Mini 14) as well as handguns when not in your actual possession.

That does not make me anti American or anti constitution.

Any more than beyond disagreeing with wherever they pulled the so called Citizen United thing out of their robes.

Its clear that on both side at the Supreme Court level they interpreted the Constitution to meet their agenda and not on the rules of law.
 
RC20 said:
3. The 2nd amendment has been hijacked to protect the second amendment,...
Click to expand...

What a dirty trick!

RC20 said:
Any more than beyond disagreeing with wherever they pulled the so called Citizen United thing out of their robes.

Its clear that on both side at the Supreme Court level they interpreted the Constitution to meet their agenda and not on the rules of law.
Click to expand...

Probably the part of their robes in which they keep a copy of the 1st Am. The decision in Citizens United is based on established jurisprudence. The law struck was one that prohibited speech according to the identity of the speaker. The identity of the speaker is not a part of a competent 1st Am. analysis.
 
I know I am in a serious minority.
Click to expand...

I believe we do need to do something. The fact that my wife who has never shot a gun in her whole life can go get an AR15 and be home in 20 minutes with it is definitely a problem...oh and if she wanted to get a revolver she couldn't do that, she would need to get a permit from the sheriff. Its harder to buy a handgun here in NC.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top