High court should understand the Constitution
Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his recent book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, makes the argument that the Bill of Rights should be themselves amended. He seems not to realize why these were written and their purpose, which was to stop the federal government abusing its limited powers. Tat is clearly stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights that reads: “The conventions of a number of States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution- preamble to the Bill of Rights Amendments — March 4, 1789.”
His other argument about adding the requirement that bearing arms in the Second Amendment should be restricted to the militia makes it obvious he doesn't know who, by law, comprises the militia. Federal law defines at U.S. Code Title 10 § 311. “Militia: composition and classes as (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are — (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
So,under existing federal law, every able-bodied male from 17 to 45 who are citizens or want to become citizens is in the militia and therefore, by his requirement, should be able to bear arms. It’s scary that a justice is so ignorant of the law to make such statements.