John Paul Stevens, the 97-year-old retired Supreme Court justice, is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment and is encouraging anti-gun protesters to do the same. Stevens, once the leader of the court’s liberals, said the “schoolchildren and their supporters” who have been demonstrating against school shootings should “seek more effective and more lasting reform.”
“They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment,” Stevens wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times on Tuesday. Stevens argued that the amendment – which states that “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” – is a “relic of the 18th century.” Fox News
“Relics should choose their words carefully lest they be thought of in kind.” Dennis Merrigan
It’s not every day a once powerful and influential Supreme Court Justice reveals publicly how utterly unqualified he is to have ever held the position in the first place. The above words from now-retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens are enough to cause a chill to run down the spine of every American patriot. Justice Stevens’ remarks about the Second Amendment reveal a thinly disguised, partisan-political bias against the fundamental laws governing our country. His opinions are so contrary to the literal, historic and spiritual meaning of our Constitution it’s terrifying to think this man once ruled on matters of national importance.
Justice Stevens has chimed in on the Second Amendment at a time when the left has waged an open campaign against firearms ownership the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment because of criminal, mass school shootings. Adding fuel to this fire, Justice Stevens’s exhortation for gun control advocates to demand a repeal of the Second Amendment borders on idiocy. A repeal of any constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 majority in Congress AND ratification of 2/3 of the states. Given this has only happened once in our history (ending Prohibition) the political left’s chances of doing away with the wildly popular Second Amendment are slim and none. Justice Stevens, a champion of liberalism has to know that, doesn’t he? I mean he WAS a Supreme Court Justice after all.
As troubling as Justice Stevens’ remarks are, they are even more vacuous when examined more thoroughly. His opinion illustrates the total lack of understanding (or utter disregard) of the concepts of freedom common to most liberals. The western style freedom we take for granted isn’t the natural human condition and must be defended always. In most of the world, human suffering is more the norm with occasional bouts of personal freedom popping up and disappearing almost as fast. His willful indifference displays the exact attitude necessary for a totalitarian state to come into existence, ironically a central reason for the Second Amendment in the first place.
At his core Justice Stevens thinks we (the little people) need to trust he and other high ranking, enlightened government officials have our best interests at heart. We should understand that they know what those interests are, and they alone are best suited to the fair and unbiased protection of those interests even as he advocates eliminating a core Constitutional protection. We peasants are incapable of knowing what’s in our own best interest just like the Monty Python sketch portrays. Art imitates life for sure.
This obviously is the natural, reflexive liberal aspiration, total control. Since he advocates stripping a core right away from us, by virtue of his former position and presumed gravitas the enlightened Justice forces us into a more thorough examination of his words and position than if uttered by the usual litany of anti-Constitution liberal crank politicians. Upon further examination, I don’t think what Justice Stevens advocates is even POSSIBLE.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is enshrined in what has become known as the Bill of Rights arguably the most important part of any document in the history of mankind. These ten Amendments to the Constitution contain ENUMERATED rights. They are significantly more important than any other amendments because they were necessary for the ultimate ratification of the Constitution by the individual states at the time of its writing. Without these guarantees of individual, personal liberty many states would have balked at signing on to the historic founding document.
“One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.”
It was this division that caused James Madison to come up with a solution palatable to both sides. His solution was a list of amendments specifically addressing the concerns for the protection of individual liberty or what are referred to as “natural rights”.
Natural rights were those deemed common to ALL MANKIND at birth as endowed by our CREATOR, God almighty. The concept of “natural right” was Earth shattering at the time because prior to our Constitution, outside circles of enlightened thinkers and scholars, the notion of rights coming from anywhere, but King or government simply didn’t exist. (Cue the Monty Python Sketch) Our Constitution as manifested in our Bill of Rights set out to change that for all eternity.
It is firmly stated in our founding documents that our rights do not come from man. Logically speaking, rights that don’t come from man can hardly be taken away by man. The Second Amendment enumerating the right to keep and bear arms and by extension, the right to self-preservation, like every other in the Bill of Rights has been endowed on us by our Creator. It’s irrevocable. Therefore, I postulate that even as a listed amendment to the Constitution, the very nature of this right is irrevocable and immune to deletion under ANY scenario. It would be akin to eliminating the right to free speech by vote. The concept that American’s aren’t free to speak their minds is unthinkable.
“The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.”
In its most basic form, the Constitution is a contract drawn up between the original states. Since the insertion of the Bill of Rights was necessary for some states like New York and Virginia to ratify the Constitution, eliminating any or all of those amendments could conceivably render the entire Constitution null and void. Also, it begs the question: how does one give up or lose a natural right? How do we eliminate the very concept of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Even when a prisoner is executed, we aren’t killing the concept of the right to life. This is a penalty justly implemented upon an individual for their crimes. It isn’t a collective punishment or the wholesale refutation of that right. With rights come responsibilities. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights merely confirm what we know to be true:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
“certain unalienable Rights” To understand and believe these words is to understand that no power granted unto man or government has the ability to strip away from us what has been given to us by God. Man didn’t make us free in his image, God did. One man doesn’t grant another man his “rights” God does. Therefore, a Supreme Court Justice, a Congress a President or even a King can’t take away our rights under the Second Amendment. They exist with or without a piece of paper. The paper just documented them for posterity.