John Paul Steven’s proposals to amend the US Constitution

Part 3 of 3

Justice Stevens’ fourth proposed amendment deals with the term sovereign immunity, which is a complete figment of the imagination in a true democracy. Nowhere do the words “sovereign immunity” or “executive privilege” appear in the U.S. Constitution or in any act of U.S. law. The term sovereign immunity derives from the obsolete doctrine and laws of Britain and other cultures and civilizations (prior to the rise of democracy, of course), where the belief was that national or tribal leaders, if not gods themselves, were appointed by God. The Crown of England was therefore thought to be immune from the courts and the law. Opposition to the king could be a capital offense, and to kill a king was regicide. The founders and framers of our U.S. Constitution were engaged in a war of independence against the British Crown (“No representation, no taxation.”) Today, in a modern democracy, we must enshrine the principle that no one is above the law. Do you agree with Stevens about this?

How about the notion of executive privilege? Is it limitless? There are plenty of examples of different kinds and degrees of executive or professional privilege and confidentiality, such as in the religious confessional, the doctor-patient relationship, advice between lawyer and client, or in private discussion between a political leader and his staff, but NOT in the latter two cases if they constitute or conceal a high crime, or intended obstruction of justice. Courts agree that the president has certain limited executive privileges and powers, but none of these are absolute. They do not apply to murder, treason or other high crimes. Nothing in the Constitution or laws of the United States suggests or implies that the president has absolute executive privilege. It doesn’t exist.

Justice Stevens would abolish the death penalty entirely in all 50 states. Already, the death penalty is losing favor in more and more national and international jurisdictions, even among religious leaders, including Pope Francis. Historically, over thousands of years, capital punishment has been considered lawful. But then, so was slavery. Slavery is no longer legal. Perhaps John Paul Stevens is right:  It’s time for a change, time for the U.S. to catch up. Do you agree with him?

John Paul Steven’s sixth proposal is to permit citizens to own and use guns only if they are serving in a militia. I would opine that this proposal would probably incite more trouble than it’s worth. First, most Americans don’t serve in a formal militia. There’s not enough room, not enough funding and not enough use for them. Second, there are plenty of better options out there. They include: registering gun ownership by unique numerical ID, reporting transfer of ownership of guns, competency testing, child locks, use of red flag warnings, and reasonable limitation of rate of fire and magazine capacity. The term “assault rifle” should be avoided because it is a technical term, subjective and easily evaded. The essential, objective traits are rate of fire and magazine capacity.  

After all, without confiscating your family car, we require registration (by numerical ID), we require reporting of transfer of ownership of your car, and we require driver competency tests to obtain a driver’s license. (Same for aircraft and pilot’s license.) And we don’t allow jet-propelled automobiles, armored tanks, shoulder-held missile launchers or supersonic aircraft on our civilian highways and streets. Let’s apply similar sensible reforms to gun ownership and see how it works out.

Finally, of all six of Justice John Paul Stevens’ proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which would you most support and which would you most warn against? Please send your opinions to The Lakeville Journal. I and other readers will be interested in your shared views on these topics.

Anthony Piel is a former director and general legal counsel of the World Health Organization.