Scan barcode
nerdybookguy's review against another edition
Too jargon-filled and relied too much on knowledge of past cases
jedwardsusc's review against another edition
4.0
I don't expect any of these to be ratified in my lifetime, but I would love to see us try.
branch_c's review against another edition
3.0
This is a quick read in which Stevens briefly outlines changes he recommends to the US Constitution. I've only read short quotes from court opinions, so I'm no expert, but to me this book reads a bit like those opinions. The language used by Stevens is a bit dense and somewhat dry.
Having said that, however, Stevens' justifications for his proposed amendments are clearly evident and seem entirely reasonable. His six proposals involve: 1. requiring all state officials (not just judges) to obey requests from the federal government; 2. prohibiting political gerrymandering; 3. allowing for limits on the amount of money that candidates and their supporters can spend in election campaigns; 4. eliminating sovereign immunity; 5. eliminating the death penalty; and 6. modifying the second amendment to apply only to members of the militia, as intended originally.
Stevens began his career as a Republican but drifted from conservative to liberal over the years; a good move in my opinion. Interestingly, Stevens is quite certain of his opinions, stating in the prologue that "As time passes, I am confident that the soundness of each of my proposals will become more and more evident, and that ultimately each will be adopted." Indeed, these suggestions are minor but powerful changes that would improve the system of justice in this country, and are well worth considering.
Having said that, however, Stevens' justifications for his proposed amendments are clearly evident and seem entirely reasonable. His six proposals involve: 1. requiring all state officials (not just judges) to obey requests from the federal government; 2. prohibiting political gerrymandering; 3. allowing for limits on the amount of money that candidates and their supporters can spend in election campaigns; 4. eliminating sovereign immunity; 5. eliminating the death penalty; and 6. modifying the second amendment to apply only to members of the militia, as intended originally.
Stevens began his career as a Republican but drifted from conservative to liberal over the years; a good move in my opinion. Interestingly, Stevens is quite certain of his opinions, stating in the prologue that "As time passes, I am confident that the soundness of each of my proposals will become more and more evident, and that ultimately each will be adopted." Indeed, these suggestions are minor but powerful changes that would improve the system of justice in this country, and are well worth considering.
mjfmjfmjf's review against another edition
3.0
This book is interesting and informative but to a large degree it is deathly boring. Except the last two chapters, on the Death Penalty and the 2nd amendment, this book was a chore to get through. And this short book was lengthened by a copy of the Constitution and yet didn't make good use of the fact that it was present in this book. So worth reading, yes. Enjoyable no.
andclay's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
3.75
I did not find this to be a edge-of-my-seat thriller, which is unsurprising, give that it’s a book about Constitutional law. I found some chapters more interesting than others, though, as the former Justice uses more or less narrative style to help convey his point.
aerlenbach's review against another edition
2.0
3 of his suggestions are boring legalese I don’t particularly care about. The other 3 are: gun control, campaign finance reform, and gerrymandering, all of which I already know way too much about. Cool to get the perspective of someone so knowledgeable about the law and US history. If you’re a big wonk into that stuff, check it out. Otherwise, Do Not Recommend
kbelcher1992's review against another edition
3.0
(3.5/5) I enjoyed this book a good deal. While I didn't necessarily agree with all of the points the author made I thought it was well written and accurately represented his points. I don't necssarily think he was wrong either just that my opinion is different. If you enjoy law then this would be a good read.