Author Topic: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment  (Read 735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,425
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them

Former Supreme Court Justice Calls for Rewriting First Amendment



Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has taken it upon himself to offer suggestions to rewrite the Bill of Rights. I don’t know why he thinks rewording amendments needs to be done since the Supreme Court has been rewriting the Constitution for two centuries.

Stevens wants to add words to the Second Amendment so it reads, “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.”
 



Stevens also has some things to say about the First Amendment. He believes it needs some restrictions, especially when it comes to campaign financing.

Adam Liptak of the New York Times writes:

“The new amendment would override the First Amendment and allow Congress and the states to impose ‘reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.’”

“Reasonable limits”? When have the government and its courts ever been reasonable? Who in the government would ever want the government to define what’s reasonable for the government? Our founders understood this. That’s why the First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . .”

Liptak went on to ask “whether the amendment would allow the government to prohibit newspapers from spending money to publish editorials endorsing candidates.” Justice Stevens “stared at the text of his proposed amendment for a little while. ‘The “reasonable” would apply there,’ he said, ‘or might well be construed to apply there.’”

Today’s leftist media most likely would not object because their people are pulling the strings of power. They love Executive Orders and rulings from the Supremen Court they see limiting the limits on the Constitution. Here’s what Wayne Rogers who played Trapper John on M*A*S*H and now a successful businessman and investor had to say about the media:

“I mean, you read Andrew Rosenthal [the op-ed page editor] in the New York Times, I mean, he's an apologist. These are people who are constipated by their own ideology, that they cannot see that this man is telling a bold-faced lie right to their face.... Nobody nails this guy. And when you read, as I said, if you read the op-ed page of the New York Times, you'd think you were living in a different country. These people don't do anything.”
 



The rest of the article goes on showing Stevens making up rules and regulations on the fly, like he did when he adjudicated from the bench.

The problem isn’t with campaign cash or the First Amendment; the problem is with the growth, size, and scope of the federal government. Groups, organizations, and business entities use the power of the purse — campaign cash — to support candidates that will rule favorably in areas where they do not have constitutional authority.

If a group or business couldn’t improve its political prospects because there weren’t any given the limitations found in the Constitution, there wouldn’t be any need to lavish so much money on a particular candidate or party.

What we don’t need is more power given to the courts to determine what constitutes free speech. Consider this statement from Stevens:

“The opinion [McCutcheon v. FEC] is all about a case where the issue was electing somebody else’s representatives…The opinion has the merit of being faithful to the notion that money is speech and that out-of-district money has the same First Amendment protection as in-district money… I think that’s an incorrect view of the law myself.”

He thinks. It’s his opinion, as it is with the unelected Supreme Court justices. None of what he advocates would do anything about the hundreds of millions of dollars that pour into the Democrat Party via unions.

If anything needs to be added to the Bill of Rights it’s the requirement that Congress, the President, and the courts should have to follow it. But even that won't work since they already take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

We could also pass an amendment limiting the terms of Senators and Representatives so they don't gain the power to be such an influence in lawmaking. Two Senate terms and three terms for Representatives.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15278/former-supreme-court-justice-calls-rewriting-first-amendment/#W8GFBc6osXVzv2mr.99
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2014, 04:08:03 PM »
The key word here is "former"......

 :smokin:

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2014, 04:32:44 PM »
This is exactly why a convention of states wouldn't turn out like it's current supporters think it would.  The left would love to get a shot at it.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65,425
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2014, 05:02:16 PM »
Do I read this as he only wants to undo the Bill of Rights? :shrug:
Abraham Lincoln:

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.
--January 27, 1838 Lyceum Address

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these
great and true principles.
--August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.
--July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2014, 06:17:02 PM »
Do I read this as he only wants to undo the Bill of Rights? :shrug:

As with most of the left, he wants to change the First and Second Amendments, with respect to Citizens United and gun rights. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,647
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2014, 06:53:12 PM »
This is why I'm glad it takes and arm and a leg to amend the Constitution...
GOP House members came to Paul Ryan to be Speaker. He didn't come to them. And he was everybody's conservative darling back in 2012. So unless 1 of the remaining 240 wants to step up & do a better job in budgeting & negotiations & herding the party cats, then everybody please STFU. You go to battle with the army you have, not the one you want but don't have.

Kevin Davis

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,280
  • #ToldYouSo
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2014, 01:14:39 PM »
This is why I'm glad it takes and arm and a leg to amend the Constitution...

exactly.  and why the persistent calls from the right for a constitutional convention are so misguided.

Online kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,647
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2014, 07:41:55 PM »
exactly.  and why the persistent calls from the right for a constitutional convention are so misguided.


A con con in this day and age will be the mother of all mistakes..
GOP House members came to Paul Ryan to be Speaker. He didn't come to them. And he was everybody's conservative darling back in 2012. So unless 1 of the remaining 240 wants to step up & do a better job in budgeting & negotiations & herding the party cats, then everybody please STFU. You go to battle with the army you have, not the one you want but don't have.

Kevin Davis

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2014, 08:35:51 PM »
The only part I would like to rewrite is where supreme court justices are appointed for life.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Online kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,647
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2014, 08:40:55 PM »
The only part I would like to rewrite is where supreme court justices are appointed for life.


I'm rather mixed about that, however, I would make the Presidential term a one six year term and have the Senators be appointed by the states again.
GOP House members came to Paul Ryan to be Speaker. He didn't come to them. And he was everybody's conservative darling back in 2012. So unless 1 of the remaining 240 wants to step up & do a better job in budgeting & negotiations & herding the party cats, then everybody please STFU. You go to battle with the army you have, not the one you want but don't have.

Kevin Davis

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,675
  • Congrats Donald Trump! 45th POTUS!
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2014, 08:41:50 PM »
exactly.  and why the persistent calls from the right for a constitutional convention are so misguided.


A con con in this day and age will be the mother of all mistakes..

The current thought is not for a constitutional convention but rather for an article V convention of the states. There's a difference in scope and objective. There would be no attempt to rewrite the Constitution, but rather to propose an amendment(s) to constrain the fedgov to follow the Constitution as written. It's the states attempt to reestablish federalism, to make the federal government a servant of the United States rather than what it has become: a national government lording over the states.
Some #NeverTrumpers are like the pockets of Japanese who didn't know the war was over

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 45,280
  • #ToldYouSo
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2014, 09:15:35 PM »
The current thought is not for a constitutional convention but rather for an article V convention of the states. There's a difference in scope and objective. There would be no attempt to rewrite the Constitution, but rather to propose an amendment(s) to constrain the fedgov to follow the Constitution as written. It's the states attempt to reestablish federalism, to make the federal government a servant of the United States rather than what it has become: a national government lording over the states.

unfortunately that is not what would happen.  unless a sufficient number of calling states specify - using exactly the same language - what is to be considered, either those limitations will not apply and it will be a general, no holds barred convention, or it won't happen at all.

so unless all of these states are prepared to call for a convention now using the language of already-proposed amendments - that is the only way to effectively corral a convention - it won't happen.  And the more specific the language used to try and restrict the scope of the convention, the greater the chances that there won't be sufficient states going along with it, the more likely it is the convention will simply fail to be called.

and that's before we even get to the quite reasonable argument that the states cannot, in fact, limit a state-called convention to only certain predetermined issues; the Constitution only says that Congress must call a convention if a sufficient number of states call for one, it neither permits, nor expressly prohibits, the states from putting limits; furthermore, the Constitution says that Congress must call a convention at the request of the states for the purpose of proposing amendments, and that language definitely implies that the states cannot call a convention to consider only a single topic, but can only call a general convention at which any amendment whatsoever can be proposed and, if backed by a sufficient number of delegates, put to the states and the people for ratification.

I, for one, do not want to find ourselves stuck in a tarpit of our own making, having given progressives the venue for rewriting the Constitution to their liking.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2014, 09:40:30 PM »
You're exactly right Oceander.  While it sounds great from the standpoint of conservatives (which I humbly consider myself), there is nothing that would prevent the convention from debating all sorts of issues including gun rights and First Amendment rights that exist today.  While it takes 34 states to petition, to my knowledge there is no precedent for what limits would exist on debates.  If Congress could limit the convention's agenda, then Article V's intent of making the two methods of amending the Constitution equal would have failed. To get 38 states (necessary for ratification) to agree on anything seems remote at best.

And I know the proponents don't want to use the term "constitutional convention", but it seems to me that such a convention called for purposes of amending the Constitution is exactly that.

Yes it would be a tarpit. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,619
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2014, 09:51:28 PM »
evadR wrote:
[[ The only part I would like to rewrite is where supreme court justices are appointed for life. ]]

I don't think ANY judge, in ANY court, should get an appointment "for life".

Yes, I understand why that concept came about -- to ensure (or at least try to ensure) an independent judiciary free of political pull.

In the case of Supreme Court justices, how about a single, twenty-year term -- after which Congress could re-confirm them for another ten-year term.

I would hazard a guess that most persons nominated for the position of Supreme Court justice are already around (or past) 40 years of age. A twenty year term would essentially grant them a "full-career" position past the age of 60. At that point they could either retire or request a reconfirmation, which would take them past 70. That's "long enough" for a justice to be in the High Court seat.

I'd like to see something similar for federal court judges, as well.

Unlike others in this forum, I have no fear of a Convention of the States, and what might come out of it.

We will not get things "fixed" at the most fundamental levels in this country withOUT one.

My opinion only, and I realize yours may be different...

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2014, 10:38:27 PM »

I'm rather mixed about that, however, I would make the Presidential term a one six year term and have the Senators be appointed by the states again.
The repeal of the 17th amendment is essential.
The presidential term thing, I've got to think on that one. At first glance, seems like a good idea.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2014, 10:43:53 PM »
evadR wrote:
[[ The only part I would like to rewrite is where supreme court justices are appointed for life. ]]

I don't think ANY judge, in ANY court, should get an appointment "for life".

Yes, I understand why that concept came about -- to ensure (or at least try to ensure) an independent judiciary free of political pull.

In the case of Supreme Court justices, how about a single, twenty-year term -- after which Congress could re-confirm them for another ten-year term.

I would hazard a guess that most persons nominated for the position of Supreme Court justice are already around (or past) 40 years of age. A twenty year term would essentially grant them a "full-career" position past the age of 60. At that point they could either retire or request a reconfirmation, which would take them past 70. That's "long enough" for a justice to be in the High Court seat.

I'd like to see something similar for federal court judges, as well.

Unlike others in this forum, I have no fear of a Convention of the States, and what might come out of it.

We will not get things "fixed" at the most fundamental levels in this country withOUT one.

My opinion only, and I realize yours may be different...
I like your proposals RE: Judges except it would be 20 years and out for me.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2014, 08:28:22 AM »
"Unlike others in this forum, I have no fear of a Convention of the States, and what might come out of it."

I would suggest it's more of a difference in expectations than fear.  How do you see such a convention producing the desired results?
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 21,341
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2014, 09:18:51 AM »
The current thought is not for a constitutional convention but rather for an article V convention of the states. There's a difference in scope and objective. There would be no attempt to rewrite the Constitution, but rather to propose an amendment(s) to constrain the fedgov to follow the Constitution as written. It's the states attempt to reestablish federalism, to make the federal government a servant of the United States rather than what it has become: a national government lording over the states.

And we all remember what happened when such a convention was convened under the Articles of Confederation don't we!

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2014, 10:06:01 AM »
And we all remember what happened when such a convention was convened under the Articles of Confederation don't we!
Yeah, but we're a lot smarter than that now, right?
And we learn from history, right? ::wink wink::
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf