Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution

In this book, Justice John Paul Stevens proposed six changes to the Constitution that he feels are necessary to avoid potential problems in the future of our country and in some cases correct mistakes made by Supreme Court decisions. While this book was published in 2014, I couldn't help but think of current events and how, in many cases, recent examples strengthen his arguments. A good portion of the book was spent on Sovereign Immunity and why the idea that government officials, including the President, can not be sued for breaking the law is harmful and based on misguided precedents. Many of his examples were from long ago in history (with a little bit of Watergate sprinkled in). I think a conversation about this topic with him in show more regards to recent history would be fascinating. I am also curious what he would think of recent developments in the gun control debate. In this book he strongly felt that recent supreme court interpretation of the Second Amendment (after starting with the Heller case) were flat out wrong and that legislatures were the appropriate branch of government to make decisions regarding gun regulations. He often referred to the tragedy of Sandy Hook and the power of the NRA. I was curious what his thoughts would be on the momentum post Parkland of groups such as Moms Demand Action towards making progress in advocating for some regulations of gun ownership.

Overall, I found it interesting reading the opinions of a former Supreme Court justice. So often, all we know about these men and women are their legal opinions that have to stick with the constitution and precedent rather than personal opinion. I liked hearing what he really thought should be done and how he acknowledges that the Supreme Court doesn't always get it right and in those cases we should remember that the legislative branch does have the power to fix it through amending a constitution that was designed to evolve. show less

I agree with Justice Stevens' proposed amendments, for the most part, though I would tweak the wording in a couple cases. But the writing is a bit too dry and arcane for a popular book, so I think it misses the mark a bit.

The first proposed change, to provide for the requirement that state and local officials enforce federal laws, I have no problem with. The second, which would prohibit political gerrymandering, I am entirely in favor of, although Stevens' proposed language may go further than necessary.

On campaign finance, Stevens focuses on regulating campaign expenditures and his proposed amendment seems like litigation-bait, as it would allow "reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their show more supporters, may spend in election campaigns." The "reasonable limits" thing just seems like an invitation for years and years of lawsuits. I would simply provide for Congressional/state regulation of expenditures and spending and leave it at that.

The fourth proposed change, on sovereign immunity, seems unobjectionable, and likewise I have no issues with the fifth, which would prohibit the death penalty. The sixth proposed amendment would add "when serving in the Militia" to the second clause of the Second Amendment - personally I have no particular problem with this, though I can't imagine it ever being ratified; I think I would focus on other areas than the relevant Constitutional provisions when it comes to gun control.

I wish Stevens had added a bit more to each section about his own involvement in the debates over these questions during his time on the Court; it would have added much to the book. show less

Interesting. I was curious to know what the 6 amendments are that he is proposing but I’m glad the book was short. Some of it was just too arcane for me, buried in legal argument and precedent that made it a challenge to read. Other parts were clear and simply stated.

Not sure I agree with each of his choices on the critical changes needed for the Constitution of the United States, but you certainly couldn't ask for a more knowledgable author on the topic. Great that he's so involved with current issues. His articles when the Voting Rights Act was gutted were superb.

Justice Stevens offers six changes he'd like to make in the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps depending on your political orientation, some will make better sense than others, whether or not his specific working suggestions are acceptable. In addition to forbidding the death penalty and limiting private gun ownership to use in state militias, he looks also at needs for federal law to require actions by state officials, and to mandate reasonableness when drawing election districts. The most technical chapter addresses state sovereign immunity from suits by private citizens, which he would allow.

A useful, if somewhat uninteresting, contribution in the genre "how to fix the country".

I want really to give it 4 stars, but don't because it is fairly uncompelling. This is serious flaw for a book that is meant to be, at least in part, an argument to change minds.

Four stars for agreeing with former Justice Stevens more than the writing, which is of course kind of dry. Here's a screen shot of his major recommended changes:

Gerrymandering:"Districts shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory...any departure must be justified...the interest in enhancing or preserving political power is not neutral."

Campaign finance: ""Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision...shall be construed to prohibit Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money..."

Death penalty: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted."

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being show more necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms while serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

So, some heads will explode, but some cooler heads will prevail someday. Thanks to the former Justice for writing this. Wish he was still on the SCOTUS, always. show less