What do you think?
Rate this book
Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution
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.
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.
192 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
119 people are currently reading
1619 people want to read
About the author
John Paul Stevens
15 books44 followersJohn Paul Stevens, J.D. (Northwestern University School of Law, 1945; B.A., English, University of Chicago, 1941), served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1970–1975. President Gerald R. Ford nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat December 19, 1975. Justice Stevens retired from the Supreme Court on June 29, 2010.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 183 reviews
June 27, 2019
Having read both of his other tomes, I thought I ought to complete the trifecta by giving this short piece by former Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Associate Justice John Paul Stevens a read through. Stevens explores the US Constitution and some of the cases that came before the Court during his tenure to propose six amendments to the document that would tighten loopholes that have arisen. In the opening portion of the book, Stevens offers the reader some well-grounded history on the US Constitution and its amending formula, as well as how the numerous amendments to the document came to fruition. While Stevens explains that changes are by no means easy (nor should they be), there are some essential elements that should be considered now, as the 21st century is in full swing. Stevens explores the power of federalism in the United States, where SCOTUS and Congress have repeatedly fallen to the limits of the Constitution during discussions of state sovereignty on certain issues of national importance. Poignantly, Stevens also dives head deep into the issue of political gerrymandering and how the Courts (and legislative bodies) use this form of election-getting to work in their favour, to the detriment of the party out of power. Hardline discussion about election financing and gun control—two issues that have become major thorns—receive succinct discussion and shows just how passionate Stevens is on the matter. Using case law and decisions of the Court, as well as some superbly placed history, Stevens drives home the point of the need for this six amendments, as well as offering actual wording that could be used to remedy the issue at hand. From the mind of a great Associate Justice comes the arguments that are both well founded and provoking. Recommended to those who love constitutional discussions, particularly the reader who has an interest in SCOTUS decisions.
It was almost by accident that I began my binge reading of John Paul Stevens and his work, when a friend on Goodreads recommended his recent judicial memoirs. I was hooked from the opening pages and devoured the book, following it up with the memoir around the five Chief Justices with whom Stevens had a relationship. Now, able to sink my teeth into this piece, I can see just how well-rounded Stevens remains, even off the bench. His arguments are sound and his delivery is such that the reader wants to learn a little more. Those who read all three books will see some of the same anecdotes, supporting one another on this long and tumultuous legal journey. I was impressed with how powerfully Stevens could be in a succinct manner. His knowledge and ability to ‘water down’ the discussion allows laypeople to engage and happily feel a sense of understanding when it comes to matters of constitutional amendments. Will any of these amendments see the light of day or become part of the US Constitution? There is no telling, though the impetus would have to be there, as well as a grounded Executive that does not try to Tweet-monger. So... maybe after 2020.
Kudos, Justice Stevens, for yet another impressive piece of work. I hope others trip upon the three books you have penned and realize how fortunate they would be to learn from you.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
It was almost by accident that I began my binge reading of John Paul Stevens and his work, when a friend on Goodreads recommended his recent judicial memoirs. I was hooked from the opening pages and devoured the book, following it up with the memoir around the five Chief Justices with whom Stevens had a relationship. Now, able to sink my teeth into this piece, I can see just how well-rounded Stevens remains, even off the bench. His arguments are sound and his delivery is such that the reader wants to learn a little more. Those who read all three books will see some of the same anecdotes, supporting one another on this long and tumultuous legal journey. I was impressed with how powerfully Stevens could be in a succinct manner. His knowledge and ability to ‘water down’ the discussion allows laypeople to engage and happily feel a sense of understanding when it comes to matters of constitutional amendments. Will any of these amendments see the light of day or become part of the US Constitution? There is no telling, though the impetus would have to be there, as well as a grounded Executive that does not try to Tweet-monger. So... maybe after 2020.
Kudos, Justice Stevens, for yet another impressive piece of work. I hope others trip upon the three books you have penned and realize how fortunate they would be to learn from you.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
Read
April 24, 2014This review originally appeared in my column for Huffington Post on April 23, 2014.
As you may recall from your eighth-grade social studies class, the United States Constitution was written to be changed and we have changed it often. Even as the last of the 13 colonies were ratifying the Constitution in 1789 and 1790, the First Congress was already deep into debate over the Bill of Rights that would become the first ten amendments.
In the years since, we have tinkered with the Constitution a number of times for a number of reasons: to abolish slavery (13th Amendment), redefine citizenship (14th), give African Americans (15th) and women (19th) the vote, abolish (18th) and un-abolish (21st) the manufacture and sale of alcohol. We have altered how we elect presidents (12th), changed the date they take office (20th), and limited them to two terms (22nd).
Since the 1960s, when there were three amendments -- giving Washington, D.C., electoral votes (23rd), repealing poll taxes (24th), and adjusting presidential succession (25th) -- there have been only two. In 1971, the 26th Amendment reduced the voting age to 18; in 1992, the 27th Amendment prohibited Congress from increasing its own salaries in the middle of the term.
Since then? Nothing.
Despite polling that shows incredible frustration with how poorly Washington works, there have been no serious efforts to address such perceived failings by amending the Constitution. Even proponents of congressional term limits -- who had their heyday during the 1990s with Newt Gingrich's proposed Contract with America -- failed mount a serious effort to put term limits into the Constitution.
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens revives the idea of amending the Constitution in his new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, though only two have much chance of ever happening.
Two of Stevens' proposed amendments -- revising the anti-commandeering and sovereign immunity provisions -- are too legalistic and obscure to galvanize a national effort. Two others -- regulating firearms and outlawing the death penalty -- are too controversial to get traction in the current political environment.
Stevens' final two proposed amendments, though, are aimed at reforming Congress, and there he may be onto something.
First, to combat the increasing tendency of congressional seats to be either safely Democratic or safely Republican, Stevens proposes an amendment that would require states to draw more geographically cohesive districts. That would result in a greatly expanded number of politically moderate districts and, therefore, more members of Congress with more interest in serving the voters in the middle than those at the extremes.
Second, to neutralize the dominance of corporate money in congressional elections, Stevens would amend the Constitution to wrest campaign finance from First Amendment limitations -- and from the Supreme Court -- and allow Congress to impose reasonable limitations on campaign spending.
Richard L. Hasen, a law professor and expert on campaign finance, dinged Stevens in The Daily Beast for the impracticality of proposing constitutional amendments that have no chance of gaining the support of two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures when the Republican Congress has already rejected more modest campaign finance reform.
That's true to a point, but I come much nearer seeing success from outside pressure on a Congress less popular than bad breath to reform itself than proposed amendments that people either don't care about or are evenly divided. The best-case scenario would be an outsider president like Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton running an anti-Congress campaign, winning, and then making redistricting or campaign finance reform a major goal of his or her first hundred days in office.
Stevens structured the book as a collection of bench briefs -- short histories of the various judicial interpretations of the provisions that he would change -- that take on issues where he thinks the conservative majority has led the Supreme Court astray in recent years.
Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote of his recent interview with Stevens that "there was a hint of anger in some of his remarks" and that Stevens "said the court had made a disastrous wrong turn in its recent string of campaign finance rulings."
It's a matter of framing whether Six Amendments seeks more to rebuke the conservative majority for politicizing the Constitution to achieve ideological ends or to improve public policy -- certainly, Stevens would say it is both -- but there should be no dispute that gerrymandered congressional districts and corporate money in elections are structural impediments to effective government and that both could be addressed through constitutional amendments.
Stevens does not make a case for how to galvanize public support for the reforms or how the amendments would work in practice, but that's not the point of the book, which is to serve as a conversation-starter for a conversation worth having.
As you may recall from your eighth-grade social studies class, the United States Constitution was written to be changed and we have changed it often. Even as the last of the 13 colonies were ratifying the Constitution in 1789 and 1790, the First Congress was already deep into debate over the Bill of Rights that would become the first ten amendments.
In the years since, we have tinkered with the Constitution a number of times for a number of reasons: to abolish slavery (13th Amendment), redefine citizenship (14th), give African Americans (15th) and women (19th) the vote, abolish (18th) and un-abolish (21st) the manufacture and sale of alcohol. We have altered how we elect presidents (12th), changed the date they take office (20th), and limited them to two terms (22nd).
Since the 1960s, when there were three amendments -- giving Washington, D.C., electoral votes (23rd), repealing poll taxes (24th), and adjusting presidential succession (25th) -- there have been only two. In 1971, the 26th Amendment reduced the voting age to 18; in 1992, the 27th Amendment prohibited Congress from increasing its own salaries in the middle of the term.
Since then? Nothing.
Despite polling that shows incredible frustration with how poorly Washington works, there have been no serious efforts to address such perceived failings by amending the Constitution. Even proponents of congressional term limits -- who had their heyday during the 1990s with Newt Gingrich's proposed Contract with America -- failed mount a serious effort to put term limits into the Constitution.
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens revives the idea of amending the Constitution in his new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, though only two have much chance of ever happening.
Two of Stevens' proposed amendments -- revising the anti-commandeering and sovereign immunity provisions -- are too legalistic and obscure to galvanize a national effort. Two others -- regulating firearms and outlawing the death penalty -- are too controversial to get traction in the current political environment.
Stevens' final two proposed amendments, though, are aimed at reforming Congress, and there he may be onto something.
First, to combat the increasing tendency of congressional seats to be either safely Democratic or safely Republican, Stevens proposes an amendment that would require states to draw more geographically cohesive districts. That would result in a greatly expanded number of politically moderate districts and, therefore, more members of Congress with more interest in serving the voters in the middle than those at the extremes.
Second, to neutralize the dominance of corporate money in congressional elections, Stevens would amend the Constitution to wrest campaign finance from First Amendment limitations -- and from the Supreme Court -- and allow Congress to impose reasonable limitations on campaign spending.
Richard L. Hasen, a law professor and expert on campaign finance, dinged Stevens in The Daily Beast for the impracticality of proposing constitutional amendments that have no chance of gaining the support of two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures when the Republican Congress has already rejected more modest campaign finance reform.
That's true to a point, but I come much nearer seeing success from outside pressure on a Congress less popular than bad breath to reform itself than proposed amendments that people either don't care about or are evenly divided. The best-case scenario would be an outsider president like Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton running an anti-Congress campaign, winning, and then making redistricting or campaign finance reform a major goal of his or her first hundred days in office.
Stevens structured the book as a collection of bench briefs -- short histories of the various judicial interpretations of the provisions that he would change -- that take on issues where he thinks the conservative majority has led the Supreme Court astray in recent years.
Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote of his recent interview with Stevens that "there was a hint of anger in some of his remarks" and that Stevens "said the court had made a disastrous wrong turn in its recent string of campaign finance rulings."
It's a matter of framing whether Six Amendments seeks more to rebuke the conservative majority for politicizing the Constitution to achieve ideological ends or to improve public policy -- certainly, Stevens would say it is both -- but there should be no dispute that gerrymandered congressional districts and corporate money in elections are structural impediments to effective government and that both could be addressed through constitutional amendments.
Stevens does not make a case for how to galvanize public support for the reforms or how the amendments would work in practice, but that's not the point of the book, which is to serve as a conversation-starter for a conversation worth having.
June 11, 2014
Concise, cogent, and to the point. The six changes Justice Stevens would make are (1) enable the federal government to require state officers to enforce federal law (currently, although the constitution says that federal law is "the supreme law of the land" over state law, the supreme court has interpreted this to mean only that state judges have to follow federal law, but not that other state officers are required to enforce federal law), (2) give political gerrymandering the same scrutiny under the constitution that racial gerrymandering gets, (3) overturn Citizens United by clarifying that the constitution does not prohibit reasonable limits on campaign financing, (4) get rid of sovereign immunity as a defense for violations of the constitution or federal law by state officers, (5) expressly prohibit capital punishment as one example of a cruel and unusual punishment, and (6) clarify that the second amendment's right to bear arms is tied to service in a state militia.
March 27, 2014
Gotta hand it to former Justice Stevens: Just when you think you're gonna get a straight political polemic on the ills of the country, you instead get a quiet, calm, legally-reasoned set of arguments for a handful of constitutional amendments. Each proposed change gets its own mini legal history, with special focus on how the Supreme Court has adjudicated. Some involve qualifying changes to existing amendments (like his proposed addition to the Second Amendment), while others (like the one involving gerrymandering) are brand new amendments altogether. Personal politics, being inextricable from any such argument, are generally thoroughly restrained, with the benefits to the political process at large being the primary focus. In terms of style, Stevens writes in a cold, calculating manner, lending to a touch of dryness, but I attribute that to decades of legal writing (which, if anyone's ever read any arguments or decisions, doesn't tend toward stylistic flourishes). There's the occasional factual error (the big one that leapt off the page to me was his mention of Henry IV being the king of England in 1600...), but this is likely due to the nature of the earliness of the draft. In all, this is an intelligent, well-reasoned defense of new changes to the Constitution; a quick read with a good amount of information.
November 11, 2024
This was written by the late US Supreme Court Justice
Stevens. Pres. Ford appointed him to be a conservative
voice on the court, when often Stevens was the opposite.
Gave this 3.5 stars.
Justice Stevens used legal language, so I tried my best to
understand his points.
I chose the most controversial subjects he touched on.
1) Stevens voiced that it was the job of each state to decide
gun laws for that state. Or the US Congress could create or
change federal laws, in reference to guns. The US Supreme
Court (SCOTUS) ruled in District of Columbia V Heller in
2008 that Americans could use hand guns to defend them-
selves. Stevens thought federal courts, including SCOTUS,
should not rule on gun rights or gun control.
Stevens suggested amending the 2nd Amendment to state:
"A well regulated Militia (now known as National Guard)
being necessary to securing of a free State, the right of the
people to keep & bear arms WHEN SERVING IN THE MILITIA
shall not be infringed."
2) The death penalty. He suggested this be added to the 8th
Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required nor ex-
cessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
SUCH AS THE DEATH PENALTY INFLICTED." He concluded
the death penalty was not a deterrent to crime, but rather
retribution for a crime. He expressed being on 'death row'
was punishment enough for any prisoner.
3) Political gerrymandering. The party in power at each
state legislature could re-draw US Congressional districts
for their state after ea 10 yr census results. Stevens proposed
this amendment "Districts represented by Congress
members or my state legislative body members, shall be
compact & composed of contiguous territory...." He wanted
to prevent Congressional districts drawn in the shape of a
necklace to maximize the majority party's advantage for the
most Congressional seats to be won.
Stevens also thought that the odd shaped Congressional
districts in gerrymandering were somehow responsible for
the federal govt shut down in Oct. 2013. But he didn't explain
his theory to my satisfaction.
Stevens. Pres. Ford appointed him to be a conservative
voice on the court, when often Stevens was the opposite.
Gave this 3.5 stars.
Justice Stevens used legal language, so I tried my best to
understand his points.
I chose the most controversial subjects he touched on.
1) Stevens voiced that it was the job of each state to decide
gun laws for that state. Or the US Congress could create or
change federal laws, in reference to guns. The US Supreme
Court (SCOTUS) ruled in District of Columbia V Heller in
2008 that Americans could use hand guns to defend them-
selves. Stevens thought federal courts, including SCOTUS,
should not rule on gun rights or gun control.
Stevens suggested amending the 2nd Amendment to state:
"A well regulated Militia (now known as National Guard)
being necessary to securing of a free State, the right of the
people to keep & bear arms WHEN SERVING IN THE MILITIA
shall not be infringed."
2) The death penalty. He suggested this be added to the 8th
Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required nor ex-
cessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
SUCH AS THE DEATH PENALTY INFLICTED." He concluded
the death penalty was not a deterrent to crime, but rather
retribution for a crime. He expressed being on 'death row'
was punishment enough for any prisoner.
3) Political gerrymandering. The party in power at each
state legislature could re-draw US Congressional districts
for their state after ea 10 yr census results. Stevens proposed
this amendment "Districts represented by Congress
members or my state legislative body members, shall be
compact & composed of contiguous territory...." He wanted
to prevent Congressional districts drawn in the shape of a
necklace to maximize the majority party's advantage for the
most Congressional seats to be won.
Stevens also thought that the odd shaped Congressional
districts in gerrymandering were somehow responsible for
the federal govt shut down in Oct. 2013. But he didn't explain
his theory to my satisfaction.
April 26, 2014
More like 3.5. I will avoid going into detail because of the subject matter (I realize this book touches on controversial topics), but I really enjoyed it. Any reader, whether agree or disagree with the six proposals in this book, if the reader is fair, will respect his careful and thorough reasoning. Justice Stevens has been working under the hood of our constitution for the better part of 40 years. He knows the rattles, the leaky spots, and he has watched its interpretation change for better and worse through so many SCOTUS opinions.
So, whether a person agrees with his particular proposals on a subject or not, Stevens is among a very small number of people who know our governing document at the very highest levels, and a fair-minded reader will find enrichment regardless of comfort. Stevens shows his work and makes strong logical arguments, as he did so often from the bench. Unfortunately, it's going to be given mostly 1s and 5s because he dares to speak of flashpoint topics. I can say I read every word and it is a really good argument by someone with elite-level constitutional credibility. It does go into some legal depth, so be warned, but I thought he was very clear in his presentation.
So, whether a person agrees with his particular proposals on a subject or not, Stevens is among a very small number of people who know our governing document at the very highest levels, and a fair-minded reader will find enrichment regardless of comfort. Stevens shows his work and makes strong logical arguments, as he did so often from the bench. Unfortunately, it's going to be given mostly 1s and 5s because he dares to speak of flashpoint topics. I can say I read every word and it is a really good argument by someone with elite-level constitutional credibility. It does go into some legal depth, so be warned, but I thought he was very clear in his presentation.
Read
September 13, 2020There are no star ratings because I have no idea how to rate this book. Normally I avoid political books like the plague because as a lifelong independent I am never satisfied. Plus this is American politics, which in my personal opinion even after more than a quarter of a century and my knowing about the structure is still a confusing morass of contractions. This is not to say that I am aware of any country with a nice, clean, easy to understand set up that is free of all corruption and where there are zero power mongering people involved. If I were to rate the ability of the author to convey his ideas on paper in a readable fashion, that would be one thing, but of course one doesn't rate a book on just that, or at least I don't.
So, why did I read it? I am doing a team reading game and it was one of the shortest allowable books that I could borrow from my library on my kindle without waiting for a book on hold.
One of my problems is that I see inherent contradictions in some of the arguments and I am not good at arguing--in fact, I am really bad at it, and am not sure if it's because I am a non-linear thinker of if it is something else since I aced Algebra until I quit doing all of the work (not a story for here)--even if I found that there were some things I agreed with. As per usual, this book was quite a mix for me, and there wasn't a single chapter where I found myself agreeing 100 percent. At least one of his stances is something I completely agree with even if I don't agree with everything he argued, but there is at least one I do not agree with, but again that doesn't mean I disagreed with everything he argued. Thus my dilemma.
So, why did I read it? I am doing a team reading game and it was one of the shortest allowable books that I could borrow from my library on my kindle without waiting for a book on hold.
One of my problems is that I see inherent contradictions in some of the arguments and I am not good at arguing--in fact, I am really bad at it, and am not sure if it's because I am a non-linear thinker of if it is something else since I aced Algebra until I quit doing all of the work (not a story for here)--even if I found that there were some things I agreed with. As per usual, this book was quite a mix for me, and there wasn't a single chapter where I found myself agreeing 100 percent. At least one of his stances is something I completely agree with even if I don't agree with everything he argued, but there is at least one I do not agree with, but again that doesn't mean I disagreed with everything he argued. Thus my dilemma.
April 19, 2021
I wholeheartedly believe we need to revisit some things in our Constitution—and have for some time. Here, a Constitutional expert (understatement) identifies six areas that are ripe for addressing via Amendment, covers them extensively via expanded essay, and then provides suggestions on how to Amend the Constitution. I whole-heartedly agree with Justice Stevens’ suggestions to address political gerrymandering, campaign finance, sovereign immunity, and gun control (the 2nd Amendment reforms leave the gun laws to the states). I think the “anti-commandeering” rule is a bit to nuanced to garner sufficient popular support and I am not convinced it is a problem of Constitutional import. I also do not think the death penalty should be abolished via Constitutional Amendment. All in all, a very intelligent and well articulated way to reform our Government for the better. I would like to see some of these start to garner popular support.
February 13, 2017
a very linear description of how history and historical law got us from a starting point in the Constitution to current supreme court rulungs. A pretty dry read (more like a textbook) but it contains enough personal touch from JPS to keep it moving. I have a similar view of the Constitution as does Justice Stevens but I think this is a quality read even for those who do not. Even if you are starting from square one with knowledge of the Supreme Court this book is very digestible and can be tackled in an afternoon. You'll have a much greater knowledge of how the Constitution and the law work after reading...if you occupy the oval office and don't know anything about the Constitution this book might help (if such a person exists).
January 7, 2019
I listened to this on my drive back from Austin. It was so informative to hear these suggestions from a former Supreme Court Justice. He cited so many opinions; he’s got such a wealth of knowledge of legal history. It’s just fascinating. (A+)
April 11, 2016
It's been kind of hard to separate my opinion of Justice Stevens' opinions from my opinions of his writing and how he makes his arguments. Hopefully I can focus on the latter two in this review. In regards to his opinions, in some cases I agree and some I don't, but most of the time even when I agree it's for different reasons.
For anyone who still holds that the Supreme Court has been an unbiased, objective body focused on adjudicating based on established laws, this book is a fairly short way to disabuse them (shorter, for example, than The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court). It's interesting to know that John Paul Stevens has his own opinions about what laws should be made and what some of them are. He's held many of them for a long time, and his memories of opinions made with his fellow justices are illustrative that the boundary between making the law and interpreting it is pretty thin. In addition, his recounting of how justices who agreed with him were "correct" in how they interpreted things and how those who disagreed were "persuaded" or flat out coming from nowhere makes it clear that, at least for Justice Stevens, there was no difference between his opinion and the law.
Stevens' "Anti-Commandeering Rule" adjustment is mainly a recognition that the battle for the balance of power between states and the federal government is over, and the states lost. This amendment seems more like a cleanup of weird legal cruft than anything else, although Stevens makes his reasoning very clear. Similarly, for an anti-gerrymandering amendment he's clear and shows a driving need. I was a little surprised that he repeatedly limits himself to accusing the political parties in power of gerrymandering, when I've seen cases (like California) where politicians on both sides show ability to work together in order to ensure they all get reelected.
The third amendment on Campaign Finance is where things start to falter. Although Stevens is semi-convincing that money spent may not influence elections significantly, I would think that should be an argument against limited campaign spending instead of for it. However, he brings up a very good issue about corporations being people legally yet not being able to vote, and how their spending may make a difference. I anticipated his chapter on Sovereign Immunity would suggest that sitting political leaders be vulnerable to suits, but it turns out there's a weirdness (like anti-commandeering) where individuals in one state cannot sue another state without that state's permission. His accounting of the (non-Constitutional) origin of that practice is interesting, as is his utter lack of desire to acknowledge any of his own opinions that may also have had entirely non-Constitutional origins.
The last two chapters, abolishing the death penalty and advocating much firmer gun control, are where Stevens shows more of his own feelings without regard to the law or strong evidence. His core example for the death penalty was a case where an individual stirred up a lot of legal costs simply to fight the prosection's push for the death penalty. Yet the example itself suggests that, if the death penalty didn't exist as a bargaining chip, the costs would have been incurred anyway fighting lifetime incarceration. It also reveals the perpetrator's fear of death once he'd been charged, which kind of undermines Stevens' assertion that the death penalty is not a deterrent. The other strong issue is that where the wrong person is convicted of a crime. I don't see that as a good argument against the death penalty, I see it as a good argument that we should fix up our legal system so innocent people don't get convicted of crimes. After all, how is life imprisonment with no parole so much better for an innocent person than being executed? You can't really say it offers the hope of exoneration because there are many current cases where the state refuses to test evidence it already possesses in order to clear innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted.
And the gun control suggestion is a bit tough to deal with. Stevens is convincing that the wording of the second amendment doesn't exactly match the original intentions of the founders, but the wording itself is strong and clear enough it's hard to change without getting drastic. Also, apparently his motivation for pushing this change is the tragedy at Sandy Hook, although he freely admits his suggested change wouldn't have prevented what happened? Also: handguns have no military use? Last I checked, members of the military were issued handguns. In addition, police serve a military-like function that very much involves the use of handguns. So this last section is especially garbled in its reasoning and arguments.
So the suggestions for amendments are kind of a mixed bag, but for anyone who is interested in how the Supreme Court works, or political issues, it's definitely a recommended read.
For anyone who still holds that the Supreme Court has been an unbiased, objective body focused on adjudicating based on established laws, this book is a fairly short way to disabuse them (shorter, for example, than The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court). It's interesting to know that John Paul Stevens has his own opinions about what laws should be made and what some of them are. He's held many of them for a long time, and his memories of opinions made with his fellow justices are illustrative that the boundary between making the law and interpreting it is pretty thin. In addition, his recounting of how justices who agreed with him were "correct" in how they interpreted things and how those who disagreed were "persuaded" or flat out coming from nowhere makes it clear that, at least for Justice Stevens, there was no difference between his opinion and the law.
Stevens' "Anti-Commandeering Rule" adjustment is mainly a recognition that the battle for the balance of power between states and the federal government is over, and the states lost. This amendment seems more like a cleanup of weird legal cruft than anything else, although Stevens makes his reasoning very clear. Similarly, for an anti-gerrymandering amendment he's clear and shows a driving need. I was a little surprised that he repeatedly limits himself to accusing the political parties in power of gerrymandering, when I've seen cases (like California) where politicians on both sides show ability to work together in order to ensure they all get reelected.
The third amendment on Campaign Finance is where things start to falter. Although Stevens is semi-convincing that money spent may not influence elections significantly, I would think that should be an argument against limited campaign spending instead of for it. However, he brings up a very good issue about corporations being people legally yet not being able to vote, and how their spending may make a difference. I anticipated his chapter on Sovereign Immunity would suggest that sitting political leaders be vulnerable to suits, but it turns out there's a weirdness (like anti-commandeering) where individuals in one state cannot sue another state without that state's permission. His accounting of the (non-Constitutional) origin of that practice is interesting, as is his utter lack of desire to acknowledge any of his own opinions that may also have had entirely non-Constitutional origins.
The last two chapters, abolishing the death penalty and advocating much firmer gun control, are where Stevens shows more of his own feelings without regard to the law or strong evidence. His core example for the death penalty was a case where an individual stirred up a lot of legal costs simply to fight the prosection's push for the death penalty. Yet the example itself suggests that, if the death penalty didn't exist as a bargaining chip, the costs would have been incurred anyway fighting lifetime incarceration. It also reveals the perpetrator's fear of death once he'd been charged, which kind of undermines Stevens' assertion that the death penalty is not a deterrent. The other strong issue is that where the wrong person is convicted of a crime. I don't see that as a good argument against the death penalty, I see it as a good argument that we should fix up our legal system so innocent people don't get convicted of crimes. After all, how is life imprisonment with no parole so much better for an innocent person than being executed? You can't really say it offers the hope of exoneration because there are many current cases where the state refuses to test evidence it already possesses in order to clear innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted.
And the gun control suggestion is a bit tough to deal with. Stevens is convincing that the wording of the second amendment doesn't exactly match the original intentions of the founders, but the wording itself is strong and clear enough it's hard to change without getting drastic. Also, apparently his motivation for pushing this change is the tragedy at Sandy Hook, although he freely admits his suggested change wouldn't have prevented what happened? Also: handguns have no military use? Last I checked, members of the military were issued handguns. In addition, police serve a military-like function that very much involves the use of handguns. So this last section is especially garbled in its reasoning and arguments.
So the suggestions for amendments are kind of a mixed bag, but for anyone who is interested in how the Supreme Court works, or political issues, it's definitely a recommended read.
February 4, 2019
Politically I agree with all of these amendments and I appreciate his logic. Sometimes I wished it didn’t read so much like a dissenting opinion.
December 20, 2021
Former Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens effectively presented his case on the necessity of his six amendment proposals. This book is easy to follow as it is meant for general consumption, not just for legal eagles.
Amending the Supremacy Clause to guarantee enforcement of federal law by all state officials, not just judges, is essential. Racial gerrymandering is heavily frowned upon by the Court, but political gerrymandering is not handled in the same way; however, that should change in the name of fairness. Overturning Citizens United by amendment is essential because reasonable limits are understandable when it comes to campaign financing. Having an amendment that removes sovereign immunity for states to use as a defense against violations of the Constitution and federal laws is important in maintaining the Supremacy Clause interpretation mentioned in the first proposal. Banning capital punishment through additional text to the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment is essential. Lastly, clarifying that the right to guns is connected to state militia service, which is not how it is seen today.
When Justice Stevens makes his case that statistically marginal false conviction rates on those put to death still matters. Any innocent life ended by capital punishment is too much and renders the punishment unacceptable.
Amending the Supremacy Clause to guarantee enforcement of federal law by all state officials, not just judges, is essential. Racial gerrymandering is heavily frowned upon by the Court, but political gerrymandering is not handled in the same way; however, that should change in the name of fairness. Overturning Citizens United by amendment is essential because reasonable limits are understandable when it comes to campaign financing. Having an amendment that removes sovereign immunity for states to use as a defense against violations of the Constitution and federal laws is important in maintaining the Supremacy Clause interpretation mentioned in the first proposal. Banning capital punishment through additional text to the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment is essential. Lastly, clarifying that the right to guns is connected to state militia service, which is not how it is seen today.
When Justice Stevens makes his case that statistically marginal false conviction rates on those put to death still matters. Any innocent life ended by capital punishment is too much and renders the punishment unacceptable.
May 21, 2014
May it please the court.
"Six Amendments" is fascinating in some places, but disappointing in others. On the one hand, this is a unique insight into what a Supreme Court justice really thinks, and a chance to keep pace -- for an hour or two -- with a towering intellect. On the other hand, the text can get a little dry at times, and it's no surprise to learn that Justice Stevens can sometimes be somewhat out of touch with modern life.
The book is at its strongest when talking about the anti-commandeering clause and the death penalty, but the chapter on sovereign immunity was not so impressive. The overall narrative could have done with some work too - it often reads like a collation of unrelated notes; the book ends abruptly with no summary or musings or conclusion; the footnotes are not insightful (in contrast to footnotes in the Justices' opinions!); and there's huge padding to get to 180 pages by simply tacking the Constitution in its entirety onto the end.
For hard-core Constitutional Law fans only.
"Six Amendments" is fascinating in some places, but disappointing in others. On the one hand, this is a unique insight into what a Supreme Court justice really thinks, and a chance to keep pace -- for an hour or two -- with a towering intellect. On the other hand, the text can get a little dry at times, and it's no surprise to learn that Justice Stevens can sometimes be somewhat out of touch with modern life.
The book is at its strongest when talking about the anti-commandeering clause and the death penalty, but the chapter on sovereign immunity was not so impressive. The overall narrative could have done with some work too - it often reads like a collation of unrelated notes; the book ends abruptly with no summary or musings or conclusion; the footnotes are not insightful (in contrast to footnotes in the Justices' opinions!); and there's huge padding to get to 180 pages by simply tacking the Constitution in its entirety onto the end.
For hard-core Constitutional Law fans only.
August 13, 2014
A relatively short and easy read covering quite a range of legal topics, from major hot button issues like gun control and campaign finance, to issues that the average person has probably never even heard of, like sovereign immunity and the anti-commandeering rule. It's a nice change of pace to see him arguing political and legal points outside of the constrains of the bench. He does a good job in summarizing each of the 6 issues discussed, and, as usual, presents highly structured and logical arguments. Because of his deep familiarity with the issues and with the internal procedures, he also presents a fairly unique perspective with the occasional "behind-the-scenes" look, and his analysis often follows a path that diverges somewhat from the typical political conversations you hear on these topics, which in itself makes the book worth reading.
April 3, 2014
A short and easy to read set of proposed Constitutional amendments by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. From the death penalty, gun control and campaign finance to gerrymandering, sovereign immunity and the "anti-commandeering rule" Stevens' suggestions are each accompanied by a brief judicial history and personal stories. This book was an interesting position piece that quickly laid out the reasons for the proposals and placed the focus on where the changes should be made, in the language of the Constitution itself. I received a free ARC of this book through Goodreads First Reads giveaways.
August 31, 2014
I have now read both of Justice Stevens' recent books (Five Chiefs about his time with five chief justices; this one, about his proposed revisions to six amendments). And, frankly, neither was that good. Five Chiefs was like reading a set of 1L law school case briefs (and not the insider take of someone more inside than Jeffrey Toobin, who writes nice/pop SCOTUS insider books). This one was very blah. His arguments (whether you agree with them or not) are very weak. It's as if he was told to keep this book very short and sacrificed the material.
Disappointing work from a Justice I recently met and admire.
Disappointing work from a Justice I recently met and admire.
November 18, 2016
A high three stars. An interesting read, and a relatively short book. The proposed amendments all probably have a low chance of passing -- eliminating the death penalty and even thinking about changing a single letter of the second amendment would send the Right into an unparalleled panic. The proposals about sovereign immunity and anti-commandeering are likely too esoteric to garner enough support to actually propose and enact them. And the proposals about campaign finance and gerrymandering are likely too tough politically. But an a thoughtful read, nonetheless.
November 6, 2022
3 of his suggestions are boring legalese I don’t particularly care about. The other 3 are: gun control, campaign finance reform, and gerrymandering, all of which I already know way too much about. Cool to get the perspective of someone so knowledgeable about the law and US history. If you’re a big wonk into that stuff, check it out. Otherwise, Do Not Recommend
December 24, 2015
A fun and quick read for me. I appreciated Stevens' insights and enjoyed hearing this material in closer to layman's terms, outside of the context of cases and textbooks. His descriptions were occasionally somewhat confusing, but generally informative and thoughtful. Glad I read it!
January 3, 2016
Weather or not you agree with what John Paul Stevens lays out as the amendments he would make, this is a great read. Quick, to the point, and well thought out. I found myself enjoying this read more than I thought I would.
June 11, 2014
Six Amendments is Justice Stevens’ prescription for a better America by reversing particular Supreme Court decisions through the ratification of amendments to the Constitution.
Although we typically think of the Supreme Court as being the final say in matters of constitutional interpretation, there are two ways that a Supreme Court decision may be overturned. The first is by a later Supreme Court decision that reverses an earlier decision. The second is by amending the Constitution in a way that effectively nullifies the offending Supreme Court decision. An example of the latter would be the ratification of the 13th Amendment to overturn the infamous Dred Scot decision of 1857. Justice Stevens discusses this, as well as the purposes of the other amendments, in his prologue to his proposals.
Justice Stevens’ six proposed amendments really target four areas: gun violence, our dysfunctional politics, sovereign immunity, and the death penalty. Additionally, while he does not directly discuss his theories of jurisprudence, his opinions on Court decisions and arguments for particular amendments offer some insight to his legal reasoning. He has an easy, almost conversational writing style that is very accessible; although some of his legal arguments would be more easily understood by law students than laymen.
Justice Stevens’ first and sixth proposed amendments deal with gun violence. His arguments against the “anti-commandeering rule” are among the least easy to follow in the whole work, although he makes as good an effort as anyone could to make them easy to understand. The difficulty lies not with his writing but rather the complex nature of the law in that area—fundamentally a federalism issue. The short of it is, his amendment would reverse the anti-commandeering rule adopted (or affirmed, depending on your point of view) by the Court in the Printz case, and would thus allow the federal government to require local law enforcement to enforce federal laws—in particular, mandatory background checks for firearms purchases.
When discussing his sixth proposed amendment, Justice Stevens begins with his horror at the rising gun violence in our country. He is unyielding in his interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights as protecting a state power. Toward that end, he proposes amending the Second Amendment to say that the right to keep and bear arms should only exist in connection with militia service and therefore would be subject entirely to the authority of the state. In other chapters, he makes better and more even-handed arguments than he does here. He does not take as much time addressing historical and legal counter-arguments as he might have. He clearly opposes the interpretation of the Second Amendment by the Court in both the Heller and McDonald cases; but he approves of some elements of the opinions, and takes pains to point out that neither opinion recognizes the individual right to keep and bear arms as absolute. At times, this chapter almost seems as if it is written by two different authors. In fact, if you were to pick this book up at a store for perusal, and your eyes fell on certain paragraphs in this chapter, and you knew anything about the author, you might think some mistake had been made. But this is more a consequence of the nature of the law itself and its complexities, than it is any inconsistency on the part of the author. In any case, Justice Stevens’ assessment is that, even with a modification to the Second Amendment, and the elimination of the anti-commandeering rule, not all gun violence would be eliminated, but his hope is that much of it would.
The inability of Congress and the states to act effectively, in the matter of not only gun control, even within the possibilities of Heller and McDonald, but also in other pressing areas, are attributable to our dysfunctional politics, according to Justice Stevens. He focuses on the issues of partisan gerrymandering and campaign finance. The chapter on partisan gerrymandering is fascinating for its discussion of unintended consequences that resulted from a series of decisions in the 1960’s forbidding racial gerrymandering and establishing the one-person-one-vote rule for both congressional and state legislature districts. Justice Stevens argues strongly against gerrymandering in any form—almost. On page 35, he references a North Carolina case from 1991 in which that state was determined to have racially gerrymandered a district not to prevent African Americans from being in a majority, but to assure that African Americans were in the majority—he notes that this was an attempt by the state to comply with provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He further notes that “the Court invalidated the challenged plans” in a 5-4 decision, and that the “four dissenters thought that race-conscious redistricting for the purpose of benefitting minority voters was permissible.” The case he references is Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). He was one of the dissenters. Unlike other discussions throughout the book where he explains at length his reasoning as a dissenter in certain cases, here, he is relatively quiet, probably because his purpose is the elimination of partisan gerrymandering. In any case, next school year, I will probably have my AP Government students read this chapter, since gerrymandering and its effects are typically given short shrift in government textbooks, and Justice Stevens’ discussion is very readable.
The chapter on campaign finance also discusses effects, unintended and otherwise, stemming in part from the Buckley v. Valeo case in 1976, that eventually led to the Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010. Here, Justice Stevens makes very compelling historical and legal arguments against the Court’s reasoning in Citizens United, but also shows how the result in that case came about, in part as a legacy of the Buckley case. He makes some of his strongest arguments in this chapter.
The chapter on the legal concept of sovereign immunity, and how it has developed in the United States, is particularly interesting, but, along with the chapter on the anti-commandeering rule, is particularly difficult to follow. Again, this is not due so much to Justice Steven’s writing as it is the complex nature of the law at issue. When can you sue the government for a wrong it committed against you? The answer is, it depends. It depends on the Eleventh Amendment, Supreme Court decisions about the Eleventh Amendment—which have not always been consistent, the English common law rule of sovereign immunity, and more recent amendments that contain enforcement provisions for Congress. It is a treacherous spiderweb that Justice Stevens navigates as best he can, but the reader will likely still be left with questions. Justice Stevens’ solution would indeed make things simpler: get rid of sovereign immunity entirely. He makes a strong argument for it, but spends little time discussing possible negative consequences that might have to be addressed (e.g.—Would there be a flood of litigation against government entities? Would new standards have to be developed over time for causes of action never before permissible?).
Justice Stevens’ chapter on abolishing the death penalty is the most disappointing. Although he makes an argument for the absolute elimination of the death penalty, it is not as well supported by law and history as are most of his other arguments. Death penalty opponents will not find much if anything new to support their arguments; and neither will death penalty advocates be very much swayed by anything they find here to abandon their position.
Justice Stevens shows that he is compelled by the law, history, and stark present reality. His proposals are not likely to be passed by Congress or ratified by three-fourths of the states anytime soon. This work does offer some important insight into his legal reasoning without the stuffiness one might expect of a retired Supreme Court justice. Given the momentous decisions the Court has made during his tenure, that insight alone makes the book worthwhile. His usually even-handed historical discussions of how the law and certain legal principles developed—even those he disagrees with—are the strongest part of his work. His conclusions about the death penalty and the Second Amendment are polemics and consequently are the weakest of his proposals. He does not shy away from offering his opinions on the other topics of course, but neither does he present his opinions to the exclusion of those of fellow justices with whom he disagrees—usually. Even if you disagree with Justice Steven’s opinions and conclusions, this book is still worth the read.
Although we typically think of the Supreme Court as being the final say in matters of constitutional interpretation, there are two ways that a Supreme Court decision may be overturned. The first is by a later Supreme Court decision that reverses an earlier decision. The second is by amending the Constitution in a way that effectively nullifies the offending Supreme Court decision. An example of the latter would be the ratification of the 13th Amendment to overturn the infamous Dred Scot decision of 1857. Justice Stevens discusses this, as well as the purposes of the other amendments, in his prologue to his proposals.
Justice Stevens’ six proposed amendments really target four areas: gun violence, our dysfunctional politics, sovereign immunity, and the death penalty. Additionally, while he does not directly discuss his theories of jurisprudence, his opinions on Court decisions and arguments for particular amendments offer some insight to his legal reasoning. He has an easy, almost conversational writing style that is very accessible; although some of his legal arguments would be more easily understood by law students than laymen.
Justice Stevens’ first and sixth proposed amendments deal with gun violence. His arguments against the “anti-commandeering rule” are among the least easy to follow in the whole work, although he makes as good an effort as anyone could to make them easy to understand. The difficulty lies not with his writing but rather the complex nature of the law in that area—fundamentally a federalism issue. The short of it is, his amendment would reverse the anti-commandeering rule adopted (or affirmed, depending on your point of view) by the Court in the Printz case, and would thus allow the federal government to require local law enforcement to enforce federal laws—in particular, mandatory background checks for firearms purchases.
When discussing his sixth proposed amendment, Justice Stevens begins with his horror at the rising gun violence in our country. He is unyielding in his interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights as protecting a state power. Toward that end, he proposes amending the Second Amendment to say that the right to keep and bear arms should only exist in connection with militia service and therefore would be subject entirely to the authority of the state. In other chapters, he makes better and more even-handed arguments than he does here. He does not take as much time addressing historical and legal counter-arguments as he might have. He clearly opposes the interpretation of the Second Amendment by the Court in both the Heller and McDonald cases; but he approves of some elements of the opinions, and takes pains to point out that neither opinion recognizes the individual right to keep and bear arms as absolute. At times, this chapter almost seems as if it is written by two different authors. In fact, if you were to pick this book up at a store for perusal, and your eyes fell on certain paragraphs in this chapter, and you knew anything about the author, you might think some mistake had been made. But this is more a consequence of the nature of the law itself and its complexities, than it is any inconsistency on the part of the author. In any case, Justice Stevens’ assessment is that, even with a modification to the Second Amendment, and the elimination of the anti-commandeering rule, not all gun violence would be eliminated, but his hope is that much of it would.
The inability of Congress and the states to act effectively, in the matter of not only gun control, even within the possibilities of Heller and McDonald, but also in other pressing areas, are attributable to our dysfunctional politics, according to Justice Stevens. He focuses on the issues of partisan gerrymandering and campaign finance. The chapter on partisan gerrymandering is fascinating for its discussion of unintended consequences that resulted from a series of decisions in the 1960’s forbidding racial gerrymandering and establishing the one-person-one-vote rule for both congressional and state legislature districts. Justice Stevens argues strongly against gerrymandering in any form—almost. On page 35, he references a North Carolina case from 1991 in which that state was determined to have racially gerrymandered a district not to prevent African Americans from being in a majority, but to assure that African Americans were in the majority—he notes that this was an attempt by the state to comply with provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He further notes that “the Court invalidated the challenged plans” in a 5-4 decision, and that the “four dissenters thought that race-conscious redistricting for the purpose of benefitting minority voters was permissible.” The case he references is Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). He was one of the dissenters. Unlike other discussions throughout the book where he explains at length his reasoning as a dissenter in certain cases, here, he is relatively quiet, probably because his purpose is the elimination of partisan gerrymandering. In any case, next school year, I will probably have my AP Government students read this chapter, since gerrymandering and its effects are typically given short shrift in government textbooks, and Justice Stevens’ discussion is very readable.
The chapter on campaign finance also discusses effects, unintended and otherwise, stemming in part from the Buckley v. Valeo case in 1976, that eventually led to the Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010. Here, Justice Stevens makes very compelling historical and legal arguments against the Court’s reasoning in Citizens United, but also shows how the result in that case came about, in part as a legacy of the Buckley case. He makes some of his strongest arguments in this chapter.
The chapter on the legal concept of sovereign immunity, and how it has developed in the United States, is particularly interesting, but, along with the chapter on the anti-commandeering rule, is particularly difficult to follow. Again, this is not due so much to Justice Steven’s writing as it is the complex nature of the law at issue. When can you sue the government for a wrong it committed against you? The answer is, it depends. It depends on the Eleventh Amendment, Supreme Court decisions about the Eleventh Amendment—which have not always been consistent, the English common law rule of sovereign immunity, and more recent amendments that contain enforcement provisions for Congress. It is a treacherous spiderweb that Justice Stevens navigates as best he can, but the reader will likely still be left with questions. Justice Stevens’ solution would indeed make things simpler: get rid of sovereign immunity entirely. He makes a strong argument for it, but spends little time discussing possible negative consequences that might have to be addressed (e.g.—Would there be a flood of litigation against government entities? Would new standards have to be developed over time for causes of action never before permissible?).
Justice Stevens’ chapter on abolishing the death penalty is the most disappointing. Although he makes an argument for the absolute elimination of the death penalty, it is not as well supported by law and history as are most of his other arguments. Death penalty opponents will not find much if anything new to support their arguments; and neither will death penalty advocates be very much swayed by anything they find here to abandon their position.
Justice Stevens shows that he is compelled by the law, history, and stark present reality. His proposals are not likely to be passed by Congress or ratified by three-fourths of the states anytime soon. This work does offer some important insight into his legal reasoning without the stuffiness one might expect of a retired Supreme Court justice. Given the momentous decisions the Court has made during his tenure, that insight alone makes the book worthwhile. His usually even-handed historical discussions of how the law and certain legal principles developed—even those he disagrees with—are the strongest part of his work. His conclusions about the death penalty and the Second Amendment are polemics and consequently are the weakest of his proposals. He does not shy away from offering his opinions on the other topics of course, but neither does he present his opinions to the exclusion of those of fellow justices with whom he disagrees—usually. Even if you disagree with Justice Steven’s opinions and conclusions, this book is still worth the read.
February 11, 2020
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 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.
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.
October 28, 2019
It was refreshing to read an outline proposing a course for change, however brief that outline, however general the points it places in discussion. Kudos to the late Stevens for not simply saying, "Here are things with which I am not satisfied," but also, "Here are the ways I think we should change them," and every bit as importantly, the 'why' behind it all. Would that such a text as "Six Amendments" serve as a spring board for the national discussion about the issues that divide us, some of which are contained (even if only in part) in this book.
It's not for this reviewer to convince another prospective reader of how much (or little) 'truth' this book contains; or of the accuracy (literal or contextual) of the precedents referenced within; or the overall effect (net positive or negative) of the proposed changes. If you are looking for a place to learn where you might begin a conversation about how to change the fundamental legal principals upon which the US is built, look no further.
Alexis de Toqueveille was on to something when he said, "The love that a people shows for its laws proves only one thing, which is that one must not hasten to change them."
John Paul Stevens illustrates a related point for consideration: "A legal rule should not persist merely because of its unmerited longevity."
Polarizing? Possibly. A suitable prompt for debates so desperately needed? Absolutely.
A few other passages from "Six Amendments":
"Perhaps Congress would seldom elect to pattern an American program after a foreign model, but our elected representatives, rather than judges, should decide whether is is wise to do so."
"While the patronage system is defended in the name of democratic tradition, its paternalistic impact on the political process is actually at war with the deeper traditions of democracy embodied in the First Amendment."
"If "reasonableness" is appraised by examining the interests of the entire electorate rather than just the interest of the wealthiest candidates, the issue should not be difficult to resolve."
"In his lecture "The Path of the Law," printed in the Harvard Law Review in 1898, Oliver Wendell Holmes made this oft-quoted observation: "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that it was so laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past."
It's not for this reviewer to convince another prospective reader of how much (or little) 'truth' this book contains; or of the accuracy (literal or contextual) of the precedents referenced within; or the overall effect (net positive or negative) of the proposed changes. If you are looking for a place to learn where you might begin a conversation about how to change the fundamental legal principals upon which the US is built, look no further.
Alexis de Toqueveille was on to something when he said, "The love that a people shows for its laws proves only one thing, which is that one must not hasten to change them."
John Paul Stevens illustrates a related point for consideration: "A legal rule should not persist merely because of its unmerited longevity."
Polarizing? Possibly. A suitable prompt for debates so desperately needed? Absolutely.
A few other passages from "Six Amendments":
"Perhaps Congress would seldom elect to pattern an American program after a foreign model, but our elected representatives, rather than judges, should decide whether is is wise to do so."
"While the patronage system is defended in the name of democratic tradition, its paternalistic impact on the political process is actually at war with the deeper traditions of democracy embodied in the First Amendment."
"If "reasonableness" is appraised by examining the interests of the entire electorate rather than just the interest of the wealthiest candidates, the issue should not be difficult to resolve."
"In his lecture "The Path of the Law," printed in the Harvard Law Review in 1898, Oliver Wendell Holmes made this oft-quoted observation: "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that it was so laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past."
May 14, 2025
When reading books by SCOTUS justices, you always have to go for the retired ones. You do this with the hope that a few years off from the bench (and a few decades off of politicking) would air off the smell of all that law-indoctrination. Stevens in Six Amendments shows some signs of being inoculated back into normal society, albeit not as much as I would appreciate. While Stevens should be congratulated on his ability to recognize the problematic nature of SCOTUS and its inability to magically solve all issues which reach its docket—and let’s not even start on the issues that don’t even get that far—Stevens is light on where the blame is. Namely, the limits of Hanlon’s razor, and that yes, this level of incompetence in such actions like piss-poor textualism is malicious.
The reason for 4* over 3* is because some chapters of this book highlight some very interesting topics that should be covered more by calling a spade a spade. Namely, that SCOTUS messed up. And made bad decisions on cases about issues like campaign expenditure, where SCOTUS has somehow messed up the simple and obvious idea that corporations are metaphysically distinct entities from individual voters (we can start this conversation that corporations have no identity as a “self”, and end before getting into wacky theories of group consciousness).
But it should be reiterated again that Stevens is now off the bench and free (if not obligated ) to stop dancing around how the Court behaves and start putting names to phenomena. Go ahead, explain how the Court has made these once fringe ideas (corporate personhood, nonsensical anti-commandeering or an untouchable second amendment) into mainstream and legitimized positions by framing it around fancy legalese. And now we’re in a part with the fresh shiny coat of paint of historicism has creates an incestuous loop of basing precedent based on precedent based on precedent… yadda yadda
Anyways, may Stevens rest in peace, and we can be thankful for the wisdom and insight which he did provide.
May 22, 2020
I am not a lawyer and have never aspired to be one. But every once in a while I find myself reading Supreme Court rulings and feeling a tinge of jealousy at the ability of these justices to articulate legal perspectives with such clear and compelling prose. Supreme Court justices are among the most impressive rhetoricians of our age. They have to be, since their power resides in their ability to persuade and establish the logical basis for the structure of our society. That they can do so using relatively sparse precedent and context makes their accomplishments all the more impressive.
This concise and easily-readable book reads like a court decision and lays out cleanly and dispassionately strong arguments for the ways in which the Constitution could be amended to adapt the document to the present age. Justice Stevens uses precedent and his own experience on the bench to argue for an end to gerrymandering, capital punishment, campaign financing loopholes, and sovereign immunity. Rounding out his recommended amendments include changes to gun control and state enforcement of federal law. These are frequently technical in nature, though the politics is not far behind. Most refreshingly, Stevens shows how we got here and the legal challenges that remain.
Read more at https://znovels.blogspot.com/2020/05/...
This concise and easily-readable book reads like a court decision and lays out cleanly and dispassionately strong arguments for the ways in which the Constitution could be amended to adapt the document to the present age. Justice Stevens uses precedent and his own experience on the bench to argue for an end to gerrymandering, capital punishment, campaign financing loopholes, and sovereign immunity. Rounding out his recommended amendments include changes to gun control and state enforcement of federal law. These are frequently technical in nature, though the politics is not far behind. Most refreshingly, Stevens shows how we got here and the legal challenges that remain.
Read more at https://znovels.blogspot.com/2020/05/...
July 10, 2024
Stevens sat as a justice on the Supreme Court from the Ford through Obama eras, and provides a lot of interesting insight into the changes that have occurred in the how the court interprets prior case law and the Constitution during the last 50 years.
He specifically discusses 6 areas where he feels the Constitution could be modified in the interest of creating a "more perfect union." These topics are:
1&2) state sovereignty (anti-commandeering and sovereign immumity)
3) gerrymandering
4) election financing
5) gun control
6) death penalty
The descriptions of history and case law in each instance are dry, but concise and clear. His rationale for why the proposed changes would benefit the country are also well described.
Unfortunately, this was purely an academic exercise. He never really mentions that the reason we have problems caused by gerrymandering, special interest influence in elections, lack of gun control, and the death penalty is that powerful special interests and a large portion of the US population support those positions. The challenge of our times is not crafting language to make the law more efficient and equitable, it is building a national consensus that change is needed.
He specifically discusses 6 areas where he feels the Constitution could be modified in the interest of creating a "more perfect union." These topics are:
1&2) state sovereignty (anti-commandeering and sovereign immumity)
3) gerrymandering
4) election financing
5) gun control
6) death penalty
The descriptions of history and case law in each instance are dry, but concise and clear. His rationale for why the proposed changes would benefit the country are also well described.
Unfortunately, this was purely an academic exercise. He never really mentions that the reason we have problems caused by gerrymandering, special interest influence in elections, lack of gun control, and the death penalty is that powerful special interests and a large portion of the US population support those positions. The challenge of our times is not crafting language to make the law more efficient and equitable, it is building a national consensus that change is needed.
August 30, 2016
When John Paul Stevens retired from the Supreme Court in 2010, he had served as a justice for close to thirty-five years, making his term the third longest in American history. He was also 90 years old, the Court's last veteran of World War II, and--if his critics were to be believed--a relic of a bygone era whose departure was two decades too late. Often described as "wise" and "soft-spoken," his customary bow-ties giving him the appearance of a sweet and elderly grandfather out of touch with current trends, it was easy for those beyond the Court's walls to view Stevens with an undisguised mix of amusement and derision: a snicker and a wink about the Republican appointee who had gone soft, switched sides, and grown old. What the pundits and stone-throwers didn't understand--what those who worked the Supreme Court knew from personal experience and study--was that Stevens' age and appearance belied an agitator of the highest democratic ideal, a man who knew the law better than almost anyone and wasted little time on the ignorant. In his last years, when the Court's decisions ran counter to his own understandings of the law--that is, when the conservative justices began overriding precedent and undermining Constitutional law--Stevens' dissents were brutal in their honesty and intelligence, especially when focused on the honesty and intelligence of the majority. When outsiders criticized Stevens as a turncoat who abandoned the Republican cause, they didn't understand that it had abandoned him first.
Now 94, Stevens' mind is still as strong and clear as it was during his term. Only now, the Supreme Court four years behind him, his judicial ideas have become much more political in nature. He does not look kindly on the justices he left behind, especially those who have worked so hard--and worked during the last years of his term--to undo much of the progress of the last 75 years by reinterpreting and redefining some of the most fundamental American rights--free speech, life, liberty, equality--to create a system in which those with money have power, those without have even less, and those who reek of "otherness" are prevented from becoming part of the great American "us." It is this anger--and despite his measured and professional tone, Stevens is clearly angry--that compelled him to write Six Amendments, in which he proposes small changes to preexisting Constitutional amendments with the goal of making our country a more perfect union.
As with most cases that involve the Supreme Court, however, there are problems. The most obvious, and therefore the most damaging, is not one of purpose or authority--he has both, and as someone who has lived with the Constitutional longer and more intimately than almost anyone else alive today, he should be more than forgiven for taking up the cause of preserving America's greatest ideals through monumental revisions...after all, he would know more than anyone else where the document's shortcomings can be found. No, his problem is not one of ethos but of interest. The dry, academic style that served Stevens so well as a sitting justice make much of his book difficult to read. (His longest chapter, on sovereign immunity, is downright impenetrable.) While on the court, Stevens wrote primarily for those involved in law--after all, they would be the ones most likely to reread and reference his opinions in the decades to come; a book, on the other hand, is intended for wider audiences, and the language and style inherent in judicial literature does not translate well to the bookshelves and devices of the average reader. The only exception is Steven's chapter on the death penalty, which he bases almost exclusively on personal stories--his own, the defendants of two death-penalty cases, and so on. In doing this, Stevens removes the issue from the lofty heights of cold legalese and makes it real, palpable, and relatable, insomuch as a death-penalty case can be. It's also the only amendment that Stevens stakes in ethics rather than Constitutional precedent: by continuing to use the death penalty today, long after the rest of the industrial world has abandoned it, and in the shadow of so many wrongful convictions and botched executions--which, as it happens, meet the Constitutional definition of cruel and unusual--we are staking our national and democratic reputations on an act that is hypocritical, immoral, and ineffective.
It's the sixth and final chapter, however, that is the entire impetus for Stevens' one-man Constitutional convention, as Stevens himself reveals on the very last page: below a photograph of the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where 26 students and educators were killed by a lone gunman, Stevens writes, in part, "That incident provided the catalyst for writing this book." And yet, for all the passion that must have propelled Stevens to write a book in response to such a tragic event, his final chapter is by far the book's weakest. At only 9 pages, Stevens breaks down the rulings in two recent gun-rights cases and decries both as misguided, as neither followed the Second Amendment as it was originally intended. For Stevens, the poorly worded amendment was designed only to ensure unrestricted gun possession among members of a militia, not private citizens; however, he does provide a single source to support this reading, not from the writings of the Founders or Constitutional drafts or even the analysis of scholars, historians, linguists, or grammarians. Instead, he pronounces his reading as fact while dismissing every other reading as political, then concludes the chapter with a photographic nod to the source of his writing--a memoriam that is, unfortunately, underserved by author himself.
This review was originally published at There Will Be Books Galore.
Now 94, Stevens' mind is still as strong and clear as it was during his term. Only now, the Supreme Court four years behind him, his judicial ideas have become much more political in nature. He does not look kindly on the justices he left behind, especially those who have worked so hard--and worked during the last years of his term--to undo much of the progress of the last 75 years by reinterpreting and redefining some of the most fundamental American rights--free speech, life, liberty, equality--to create a system in which those with money have power, those without have even less, and those who reek of "otherness" are prevented from becoming part of the great American "us." It is this anger--and despite his measured and professional tone, Stevens is clearly angry--that compelled him to write Six Amendments, in which he proposes small changes to preexisting Constitutional amendments with the goal of making our country a more perfect union.
As with most cases that involve the Supreme Court, however, there are problems. The most obvious, and therefore the most damaging, is not one of purpose or authority--he has both, and as someone who has lived with the Constitutional longer and more intimately than almost anyone else alive today, he should be more than forgiven for taking up the cause of preserving America's greatest ideals through monumental revisions...after all, he would know more than anyone else where the document's shortcomings can be found. No, his problem is not one of ethos but of interest. The dry, academic style that served Stevens so well as a sitting justice make much of his book difficult to read. (His longest chapter, on sovereign immunity, is downright impenetrable.) While on the court, Stevens wrote primarily for those involved in law--after all, they would be the ones most likely to reread and reference his opinions in the decades to come; a book, on the other hand, is intended for wider audiences, and the language and style inherent in judicial literature does not translate well to the bookshelves and devices of the average reader. The only exception is Steven's chapter on the death penalty, which he bases almost exclusively on personal stories--his own, the defendants of two death-penalty cases, and so on. In doing this, Stevens removes the issue from the lofty heights of cold legalese and makes it real, palpable, and relatable, insomuch as a death-penalty case can be. It's also the only amendment that Stevens stakes in ethics rather than Constitutional precedent: by continuing to use the death penalty today, long after the rest of the industrial world has abandoned it, and in the shadow of so many wrongful convictions and botched executions--which, as it happens, meet the Constitutional definition of cruel and unusual--we are staking our national and democratic reputations on an act that is hypocritical, immoral, and ineffective.
It's the sixth and final chapter, however, that is the entire impetus for Stevens' one-man Constitutional convention, as Stevens himself reveals on the very last page: below a photograph of the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where 26 students and educators were killed by a lone gunman, Stevens writes, in part, "That incident provided the catalyst for writing this book." And yet, for all the passion that must have propelled Stevens to write a book in response to such a tragic event, his final chapter is by far the book's weakest. At only 9 pages, Stevens breaks down the rulings in two recent gun-rights cases and decries both as misguided, as neither followed the Second Amendment as it was originally intended. For Stevens, the poorly worded amendment was designed only to ensure unrestricted gun possession among members of a militia, not private citizens; however, he does provide a single source to support this reading, not from the writings of the Founders or Constitutional drafts or even the analysis of scholars, historians, linguists, or grammarians. Instead, he pronounces his reading as fact while dismissing every other reading as political, then concludes the chapter with a photographic nod to the source of his writing--a memoriam that is, unfortunately, underserved by author himself.
This review was originally published at There Will Be Books Galore.
October 11, 2018
3.5 stars
I'm going to be really honest, this isn't a fun read. It's dry and boring in places. But, it is an incredibly well thought-out, perfectly reasoned, and logically explained (to the point of being annoying sometimes) book. With incredible detail and chronologically explained steps, JPStevens lays out his argument for the six ways he thinks the constitution needs to be changed. Some of the changes are minor in a physical sense (adding 5-6 words to existing amendments) but all are major in scope.
It was hard to follow the details sometimes since he includes seemingly every single applicable court case relevant to explain his arguments and I would often get things mixed up, but for me the details weren't critical to understanding and following the flow of his reasoning. I'm sure there are smarter people than me that will speak to the legalese and the validity of these cases, but I was convinced.
I'm going to be really honest, this isn't a fun read. It's dry and boring in places. But, it is an incredibly well thought-out, perfectly reasoned, and logically explained (to the point of being annoying sometimes) book. With incredible detail and chronologically explained steps, JPStevens lays out his argument for the six ways he thinks the constitution needs to be changed. Some of the changes are minor in a physical sense (adding 5-6 words to existing amendments) but all are major in scope.
It was hard to follow the details sometimes since he includes seemingly every single applicable court case relevant to explain his arguments and I would often get things mixed up, but for me the details weren't critical to understanding and following the flow of his reasoning. I'm sure there are smarter people than me that will speak to the legalese and the validity of these cases, but I was convinced.
December 10, 2023
I have definitely become interested in judicial philosophy of late, and reading books about Constitutional law from the perspective of one of the very few individuals who have served on our nation’s highest court is fascinating to me. Justice Stevens expounds upon six proposals to amend the Constitution based on his understanding and interpretation of our nation’s Constitution and the case that reached the court during his time on the bench. The language of the book definitely approaches a more academic tone, but a student of history, law, or political science will wade through it easily enough. While I do not share all of Justice Stevens’s conclusions, I do respect his expertise and enjoyed discovering his perspective. There were many areas of agreement, a few areas that I will continue to consider, and some areas we remain in disagreement. Reading books one doesn’t fully agree with should be on every persons TBR list.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 183 reviews