As you are probably aware, 97-year-old former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is arguing that the Second Amendment must be repealed. Music to my ears, but not because I want the Second Amendment to go away. Rather, the reverse.
In an opinion piece for the New York Times Tuesday, Stevens wrote that “a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”
President Trump recognized the obvious political benefit of liberals’ tipping their hand to what they really want, which is a pathway toward strict limits on gun rights. And what could help more than possession of firearms no longer being a “right.” This is going to energize Republicans for the 2020 midterms, since they will understand that their gun rights are at stake.
Over at the Washington Post, liberals who are savvier than Mr. Stephens are pretty mad about this. From an article somehow labeled “analysis” that is pure opinion:
One of the biggest threats to the recovery of the Democratic Party these days is overreach. Having seen what Republicans have accomplished while pushing to the right, Democrats are debating how hard to push in the opposite direction — on the minimum wage, on abortion, on health care and on education. A party that was once afraid of being saddled with supporting “government-run” health care is increasingly okay with the word “liberal” and even voted in droves for a self-described socialist in 2016. And its 2020 hopefuls are leading the leftward charge.
But rarely do we see such an unhelpful, untimely and fanciful idea as the one put forward by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
Trump has a good point about needing to hold the Supreme Court. Stevens is not the only liberal justice who thinks the Constitution, over which justices have stewardship, is outdated.
Just a few years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was asked whether Egypt should use other Constitutions as a model for one it might produce following the ovethrow of former President Mubarak.
“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012,” she said. “I might look at the Constitution of South Africa.”