Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Unavailable
Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution
Unavailable
Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution
Unavailable
Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution
Audiobook3 hours

Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution

Written by John Paul Stevens

Narrated by Daniel Hagen

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

3.5/5

()

Currently unavailable

Currently unavailable

About this audiobook

For the first time ever, a retired Supreme Court Justice offers a manifesto on how the Constitution needs to change.

By the time of his retirement in June 2010, John Paul Stevens had become the second longest serving Justice in the history of the Supreme Court. Now he draws upon his more than three decades on the Court, during which he was involved with many of the defining decisions of the modern era, to offer a book like none other. SIX AMENDMENTS is an absolutely unprecedented call to arms, detailing six specific ways in which the Constitution should be amended in order to protect our democracy and the safety and wellbeing of American citizens.

Written with the same precision and elegance that made Stevens's own Court opinions legendary for their clarity as well as logic, SIX AMENDMENTS is a remarkable work, both because of its unprecedented nature and, in an age of partisan ferocity, its inarguable common sense.

Editor's Note

Thoughts of a Justice…

Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired from the Supreme Court in 2010 at age 90, died July 16, 2019. He was 99. In “Six Amendments,” Stevens candidly speaks his mind about current controversies in constitutional law and details six ways he thinks the Constitution should be amended.

LanguageEnglish
Release dateApr 22, 2014
ISBN9781478929093
Unavailable
Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution

Related to Six Amendments

Related audiobooks

Politics For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Six Amendments

Rating: 3.6179770786516854 out of 5 stars
3.5/5

89 ratings12 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Under the framework of a legal prospective, John Paul Stevens provides a politicized account of changes which would ultimately lead to the permanent establishment of the American political and economic status quo. Concerned at one moment with the nature of democracy and then adamant providing legal rational to the disestablishment of such via the repercussions of the next change, John Paul Stevens illustrate the fundamental problem with the American judiciary system: that literally anything can be justified via precedent. As the least democratic institution, the Supreme Court has always supported the American status quo, this is a testament to such.

    1 person found this helpful

  • Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
    1/5
    The former Justice is of course entitled to his opinion, and to reflect on the data from his perspective. However the most common error of those who are for gun control focus strictly on the assailants, and not those they upon they bring harm. The victims, are statistically always the weak, those without the ability to defend themselves. Nature is cruel and uncaring, and evil people exist whether we acknowledge that or not. And we should seek to increase the guard around our defenseless ones, not seek to eliminate it.

    I strongly think the Justice is invariably wrong in every statement made about the Second Amendment. Also, he does nothing to touch upon the fact that the Second Amendment is not simply for self defense but for the guard of a "Free State" against the tyranny of federalism. Instead he expounds upon how federalism should be allowed to flourish all the more. This, of course, stemming from his innate faith that the Federal Government will always attempt to do the correct thing, is commendable. However this too, is fallacy, in that some day these powers he seeks to grant himself and his cohorts, will be inherited by a successor who may not use them for good at all. Much like the additional powers granted to Obama during his administration, yet now rest firmly in the hands of Trump. I find it funny, they preach, from their Judicial temple about the slaughter of children, yet turn a blind eye to how drone strikes under both Obama and now Trump have slaughtered and still slaughter exponentially more Innocents. This, in the grand scope of things, leads us of the Pro 2nd opine, to believe this is just a power play and not motivated of conscience and remorse. We do not trust the Federal government, nor our state government. They are subject to the will of the people and shall remain so. For this reason, we will not relinquish arms. Thank you for reading. Have a good day.

    5 people found this helpful

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Listening Again, Logical, Factual, Clear, impossible to imagine. Great Listen.

    2 people found this helpful

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Excellent arguments and great narration! The proposals are reasonable but with the divisions in the country, I do not see how any amendment can pass.

    1 person found this helpful

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A quick, interesting read that really makes me wish I lived in a country of populated with intelligent, well informed citizens. Oh well, one can always dream.

    3 people found this helpful

  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    I kept an open mind throughout the entirety of the book. Of the six proposed amendment changes, there were a few that were so common sense, everyone should agree upon them; however, some of the others, were a political stance. I respect the author for the service he has done,yet I cannot agree with him on half the issues. My due diligence is done though because I finished the book and tried thoroughly to understand his point of view.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    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 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.

    2 people found this helpful

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    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 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.

    1 person found this helpful

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    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.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Learned, concise, and cogent arguments from the retired Supreme Court Justice about campaign finance, gerrymandering, sovereign immunity, the death penalty, gun control, and the "anti-commandeering rule."

    2 people found this helpful

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    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.

    2 people found this helpful

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    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.