June 30, 2014
Stevens (Five Chiefs), the liberal Justice who retired in 2010, aims "to avoid future crises before they occur" with his new book, which proposes a half-dozen changes to the Constitution that would "nullify judge-made rules" endorsed by the Court's powerful conservatives. Two of Stevens's proposed corrections tackle constitutional issues that are largely impenetrable to the layman. One would help state officials enforce federal law when in response to disasters. The other would eliminate sovereign immunity which currently allows states and related agencies and officials to avoid civil or criminal charges. Stevens wants to eliminate gerrymandering, which would prevent any one political party from using geographic jujitsu to gain or maintain political power. He suggests modifying the Citizens' United decision that underscores corporations' right to donate to political candidates. His most provocative arguments address the death penalty and gun control. He dismisses retribution as an anachronism and underlines the problem of "fallibility" of executing innocent people. As for the Second Amendment, he argues that private ownership of guns is permitted only "when serving in the militia." Stevens's deceptively slim volume packs a wallop as it illuminates current controversies in constitutional law.
April 1, 2014
The former Supreme Court justice proposes constitutional changes to restore the old republic. Provocative only begins to describe Stevens' (Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir, 2011, etc.) program. Perhaps the most controversial is the constitutional amendment that, after surveying the history of amendments generally, he saves for last--namely, to rewrite the Second Amendment so that it indisputably speaks to the intention of the Founders: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed." The italics are Stevens'--the strongest reaction to this proposed change is sure to come from devoted NRA members. In fact, that change would likely spell political suicide if forwarded by a sitting elected legislator, but Stevens, retired from the bench for several years, is above the fray. He can therefore safely advance another likely nonstarter, given the prevailing circumstances: another amendment, this one prohibiting partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts, which allowed the Democrats to win the plurality of votes but the Republicans to control the House in the last election. Though clearly of blue-state leanings, Stevens is evenhanded: He no more approves of Democratic gerrymandering than Republican. The author's prose is sometimes lawyerly, but more often, it is plain and to the point: "[T]here is no reason why partisans should be permitted to draw lines that have no justification other than enhancing their own power." That plain talk extends to his arguments for limiting money given to those in power--overturning Citizens United in the bargain--and controlling states-rightist impulses to nullify federal authority and declare sovereign immunity. A refreshing set of opinions. One wishes that other retired justices would speak their minds so clearly, providing well-crafted arguments for others to take up.
COPYRIGHT(2014) Kirkus Reviews, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
April 15, 2014
Former Supreme Court justice Stevens has written a timely title discussing six changes he believes should be made to the Constitution. These revisions, he says, will decrease government gridlock, end corruption, and lessen gun violence. Each chapter of the book tackles a different subject that is currently of interest to the public and the Court. These topics include the death penalty, gun control, campaign finance reform, and political gerrymandering, which is the drawing of Congressional and other political districts to benefit a particular political party. Stevens writes about each of these issues clearly, adding background and history, and explaining how amendments will bring about the changes he proposes. The author does not ask for any completely new amendments to the Constitution but suggests additions to the text that clarify his view of the framers' intent. While Stevens offers his opinions throughout the work, he is careful to provide legal footing and history for all the viewpoints he expresses. VERDICT This is an intriguing volume with wide appeal--general readers, students, and law students will want to read it.--Becky Kennedy, Atlanta-Fulton P.L.
Copyright 2014 Library Journal, LLC Used with permission.