Six Amendments: How And Why We Should Change The Constitution?

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens sees the inherent injustices taking place in the United Stated due to the ambiguity of the Constitution. In his book titled Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, former Justice Stevens discusses these problems, and proposes solutions to these constitutional controversies.

Former Justice Stevens recounts a celebration for the fortieth anniversary of an organization formed to maintain friendly relations between Finland and the United States. While in the country, he was confronted with defending the United States’ continued use of the death penalty, an institution Finland has not participated in since 1825. His response, “our decisions upholding the constitutionality of

The inclusion of the words would make the amendment read, at the end, “nor cruel and unusual punishment such as the death penalty inflicted.” This would prohibit the state legislators justifying the state issuing the death penalty for any crimes. Former Justice Stevens sees that one of the biggest problems with capital punishment is the “fallibility” of it. He recounts that Michigan abolished capital punishment (for crimes other than treason) due to the state senator who introduced the bill had executed an innocent man while serving as a sheriff. A few years later, Michigan lawmakers decided on amending the state constitution to prevent the risk of this kind of injustice. This incident in Michigan had occurred in 1846, and the risk still remains in many states. While the

In the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations may spend as much money as they desire on political campaigns. The Supreme Court’s majority stated that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech protected not only people’s, but also corporation's, right to give these contributions. The problem with free-flowing money into elections is what had led to the Watergate scandal that accumulated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon. However, former Justice Stevens believes that Citizens United, “took a giant step in the wrong direction,” and that reasonable limits should be imposed, which they have been before (Stevens, 78). His proposed amendment to the Constitution aims to add these reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates receive, but would protect the limits by not allowing the First Amendment nor any other provision of the Constitution being used against it. The idea that capping campaign contributions violates the First Amendment stems directly from the Buckley v. Valeo case, in which the reasonable limits that existed before were dismissed with this ruling dictating the one in Citizens United, and this “fundamental error” could be rectified with Justice Stevens amendment. Justice Stevens argues the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1974, the ones dismissed in Buckley, still needs to