Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
04-22-2014, 07:23 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/04/21/youve-heard-what-justice-john-paul-stevens-wants-to-do-to-the-second-amendment-heres-what-hed-like-to-do-to-the-first/
You’ve heard what Justice John Paul Stevens wants to do to the Second Amendment — here’s what he’d like to do to the First
Previously we wrote about former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s desire to amend the Second Amendment, a position he reiterated during an interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday. The practical effect of his amendment would be that Congress could pass a ban on individual gun ownership.
Today comes word via a New York Times article that Justice Stevens, who has been making the rounds in connection with his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” would also like to override the First Amendment “to address what he [Stevens] said was the grave threat to American democracy caused by the torrent of money in politics.”
To wit, Adam Liptak of the Times writes:
“The new amendment would override the First Amendment and allow Congress and the states to impose “reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.”
I asked whether the amendment would allow the government to prohibit newspapers from spending money to publish editorials endorsing candidates. He [Justice Stevens] stared at the text of his proposed amendment for a little while. “The ‘reasonable’ would apply there,” he said, “or might well be construed to apply there.”
Or perhaps not. His tentative answer called to mind an exchange at the first Citizens United argument, when a government lawyer told the court that Congress could in theory ban books urging the election of political candidates.
Justice Stevens said he would not go that far.
“Perhaps you could put a limit on the times of publication or something,” he said. “You certainly couldn’t totally prohibit writing a book.”‘
Justice Stevens’s premise for such an amendment is encapsulated in a single remark made earlier in the article: “The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate.”
According to Justice Stevens: “The opinion [McCutcheon v. FEC] is all about a case where the issue was electing somebody else’s representatives…The opinion has the merit of being faithful to the notion that money is speech and that out-of-district money has the same First Amendment protection as in-district money…I think that’s an incorrect view of the law myself.”
Justice Stevens’s book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” comes out tomorrow.
Previously we wrote about former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s desire to amend the Second Amendment, a position he reiterated during an interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday. The practical effect of his amendment would be that Congress could pass a ban on individual gun ownership.
This is the type of scum we have ruling in the highest court of the land--aka a political operative for the dem party. -Tyr
Or perhaps not. His tentative answer called to mind an exchange at the first Citizens United argument, when a government lawyer told the court that Congress could in theory ban books urging the election of political candidates.
Justice Stevens said he would not go that far.
“Perhaps you could put a limit on the times of publication or something,” he said. “You certainly couldn’t totally prohibit writing a book.”‘
The mindset of the left.-Tyr
Perhaps you could put a limit on the times of publication or something,” he said. bastard gives away what he is with that comment...-Tyr
^^^ Old maggot should STFU. Everybody knows he operated as a political hack during his time as Supreme Court Justice. Every damn one of those judges on the left side operate like that. Especially the female judges which are all an embarrassment to this nation, leftist scum..-Tyr
Any judge on the court that is not a proven and hardcore Constitutionalist is actually a traitor and a dishonorable piece of oath breaking shat..-Tyr
You’ve heard what Justice John Paul Stevens wants to do to the Second Amendment — here’s what he’d like to do to the First
Previously we wrote about former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s desire to amend the Second Amendment, a position he reiterated during an interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday. The practical effect of his amendment would be that Congress could pass a ban on individual gun ownership.
Today comes word via a New York Times article that Justice Stevens, who has been making the rounds in connection with his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” would also like to override the First Amendment “to address what he [Stevens] said was the grave threat to American democracy caused by the torrent of money in politics.”
To wit, Adam Liptak of the Times writes:
“The new amendment would override the First Amendment and allow Congress and the states to impose “reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.”
I asked whether the amendment would allow the government to prohibit newspapers from spending money to publish editorials endorsing candidates. He [Justice Stevens] stared at the text of his proposed amendment for a little while. “The ‘reasonable’ would apply there,” he said, “or might well be construed to apply there.”
Or perhaps not. His tentative answer called to mind an exchange at the first Citizens United argument, when a government lawyer told the court that Congress could in theory ban books urging the election of political candidates.
Justice Stevens said he would not go that far.
“Perhaps you could put a limit on the times of publication or something,” he said. “You certainly couldn’t totally prohibit writing a book.”‘
Justice Stevens’s premise for such an amendment is encapsulated in a single remark made earlier in the article: “The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate.”
According to Justice Stevens: “The opinion [McCutcheon v. FEC] is all about a case where the issue was electing somebody else’s representatives…The opinion has the merit of being faithful to the notion that money is speech and that out-of-district money has the same First Amendment protection as in-district money…I think that’s an incorrect view of the law myself.”
Justice Stevens’s book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” comes out tomorrow.
Previously we wrote about former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s desire to amend the Second Amendment, a position he reiterated during an interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday. The practical effect of his amendment would be that Congress could pass a ban on individual gun ownership.
This is the type of scum we have ruling in the highest court of the land--aka a political operative for the dem party. -Tyr
Or perhaps not. His tentative answer called to mind an exchange at the first Citizens United argument, when a government lawyer told the court that Congress could in theory ban books urging the election of political candidates.
Justice Stevens said he would not go that far.
“Perhaps you could put a limit on the times of publication or something,” he said. “You certainly couldn’t totally prohibit writing a book.”‘
The mindset of the left.-Tyr
Perhaps you could put a limit on the times of publication or something,” he said. bastard gives away what he is with that comment...-Tyr
^^^ Old maggot should STFU. Everybody knows he operated as a political hack during his time as Supreme Court Justice. Every damn one of those judges on the left side operate like that. Especially the female judges which are all an embarrassment to this nation, leftist scum..-Tyr
Any judge on the court that is not a proven and hardcore Constitutionalist is actually a traitor and a dishonorable piece of oath breaking shat..-Tyr