I discussed this book elsewhere, including repeatedly in this response to an argument that it would be more useful if he argued that his positions should guide those who appoint judges to the courts (a major way the law changes as seen by O'Connor being replaced by Alito affecting multiple cases). Basically, I agree with the sentiment, especially as a realistic matter. That thread was dominated by the 2A discussion, which is useful as a case study, perhaps, though my sparring partner basically talked pass me.
The proposed amendments are listed here and one thing that immediately stands out is that Stevens wants to insert language in existing text. Madison proposed this in regard to what became the Bill of Rights, but it wasn't seen as the best way to do things. Given that, it seems a bit curious that Stevens blithely does so here. It is an example of his at time too brief discussion of the material (six amendments, 130 pages plus the Constitution, small pages at that) though the general reader will get some useful material along the way. Still, needed to show a bit more work.
I'm sympathetic to his concerns here -- e.g., political gerrymandering is a problem, including advancing more ideologically extremist legislators that negatively affects national policy overall. I think that issue perhaps is actually the most likely to get traction on some level (though again, it might be better handled alternatively, such as state level independent commissions in the states with large delegations). Still, even there, don't know about the language ("compact and composed of contiguous territory" need not be the only way to divide states), and someone like Rick Hasen (generally a liberal leaning person on electoral issues) sees red flags.
The same general concerns are raised with his "reasonable" limits language for campaign finance. The chapters on immunity and commandeering are perhaps the most important, since they cover important issues that get less coverage than things like campaign finance, the death penalty (I oppose partial lists in the 8A) and gun control (even he notes his language only addresses one constitutional argument & even if I didn't support an individual right to firearms, would find that a glaring flaw in a proposal intended to give the government broad power over gun regulation). I share his sentiments but not seeing amendments passed here either.*
I found his Five Chiefs book a bit thin since it covered well trod ground for me without much depth (it was longer but still fairly short) though the average reader might have gotten more out of it. Plus, it was decent enough light reading, more or less, with some interesting asides. Same here though a bit more concerned about lack of a bit more depth given six major issues were covered. For instance, what about a murder committed when someone is inside for life (a standard "hard case" cited)?
It's a worthwhile book but a bit too thin.
---
* Also, as to the immunity amendment, "immunity from liability" might lead to confusion -- my sparring partner thinks the language would allow congressional legislation to force state actors to do things even if otherwise blocked by constitutional provisions like the 8A. Not Stevens' aim, but the text arguably might be interpreted that way, I guess.
It is also strange that the book doesn't provide all six amendments conveniently in an appendix. I blame the editors here more than the ninety something justice who productively uses his retirement though one of the bloggers linked above suggested "retired" might not be an accurate word here because apparently technically he is still eligible. This is not how people have used the word "retired" here and it seems overly technical and overblown as applied.
The proposed amendments are listed here and one thing that immediately stands out is that Stevens wants to insert language in existing text. Madison proposed this in regard to what became the Bill of Rights, but it wasn't seen as the best way to do things. Given that, it seems a bit curious that Stevens blithely does so here. It is an example of his at time too brief discussion of the material (six amendments, 130 pages plus the Constitution, small pages at that) though the general reader will get some useful material along the way. Still, needed to show a bit more work.
I'm sympathetic to his concerns here -- e.g., political gerrymandering is a problem, including advancing more ideologically extremist legislators that negatively affects national policy overall. I think that issue perhaps is actually the most likely to get traction on some level (though again, it might be better handled alternatively, such as state level independent commissions in the states with large delegations). Still, even there, don't know about the language ("compact and composed of contiguous territory" need not be the only way to divide states), and someone like Rick Hasen (generally a liberal leaning person on electoral issues) sees red flags.
The same general concerns are raised with his "reasonable" limits language for campaign finance. The chapters on immunity and commandeering are perhaps the most important, since they cover important issues that get less coverage than things like campaign finance, the death penalty (I oppose partial lists in the 8A) and gun control (even he notes his language only addresses one constitutional argument & even if I didn't support an individual right to firearms, would find that a glaring flaw in a proposal intended to give the government broad power over gun regulation). I share his sentiments but not seeing amendments passed here either.*
I found his Five Chiefs book a bit thin since it covered well trod ground for me without much depth (it was longer but still fairly short) though the average reader might have gotten more out of it. Plus, it was decent enough light reading, more or less, with some interesting asides. Same here though a bit more concerned about lack of a bit more depth given six major issues were covered. For instance, what about a murder committed when someone is inside for life (a standard "hard case" cited)?
It's a worthwhile book but a bit too thin.
---
* Also, as to the immunity amendment, "immunity from liability" might lead to confusion -- my sparring partner thinks the language would allow congressional legislation to force state actors to do things even if otherwise blocked by constitutional provisions like the 8A. Not Stevens' aim, but the text arguably might be interpreted that way, I guess.
It is also strange that the book doesn't provide all six amendments conveniently in an appendix. I blame the editors here more than the ninety something justice who productively uses his retirement though one of the bloggers linked above suggested "retired" might not be an accurate word here because apparently technically he is still eligible. This is not how people have used the word "retired" here and it seems overly technical and overblown as applied.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!