Bask - Shop now
$2.99

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

Sold by Amazon.com Services LLC.

Audiobook Price: $12.96

Save: $3.98 (31%)

You've subscribed to ! We will preorder your items within 24 hours of when they become available. When new books are released, we'll charge your default payment method for the lowest price available during the pre-order period.
Update your device or payment method, cancel individual pre-orders or your subscription at
Your Memberships & Subscriptions
Kindle app logo image

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Follow the author

John Paul Stevens
Follow
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution Kindle Edition

by John Paul Stevens (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
4.3 out of 5 stars 337 ratings
Best Price in 30 Days
Best Price in 30 Days means that the current price is lower than, or equal to, the lowest price this item sold for on Amazon.com in the past 30 days.

The retired Supreme Court Justice offers a manifesto on how the Constitution needs to change.

By the time of his retirement in June 2010, John Paul Stevens had become the second longest serving Justice in the history of the Supreme Court. Now he draws upon his more than three decades on the Court, during which he was involved with many of the defining decisions of the modern era, to offer a book like none other. 

Six Amendments is an unprecedented call to arms, detailing six specific ways in which the Constitution should be amended in order to protect our democracy and the safety and wellbeing of American citizens.

Written with the same precision and elegance that made Stevens's own Court opinions legendary for their clarity as well as logic, Six Amendments is a remarkable work, both because of its unprecedented nature and, in an age of partisan ferocity, its inarguable common sense.

Previous slide of product details
  1. Print length
    168 pages
  2. Language
    English
  3. Publisher
    Little, Brown and Company
  4. Publication date
    February 18, 2014
  5. File size
    4.4 MB
  6. Page Flip
    Enabled
  7. Word Wise
    Enabled
  8. Enhanced typesetting
    Enabled
Next slide of product details

Editorial Reviews

Review

PRAISE FOR THE FIVE CHIEFS:

"Informative and very appealing....It's classic justice Stevens: understated and generous to those he differs with, but absolutely clear on where he believes justice lies."
--- Adam Cohen, Time

"Laced with observations on the court's architecture, traditions and even its seating arrangements, it is the collected ruminations of a man who has served his country in war and peace, across the decades... His memoir is as gracious as its author and a reminder that Stevens is more than a longtime member of the nation's highest court. He is a national treasure."
--- Jim Newton, Los Angeles Times

"An important addition to American history....At its core, the book is not just another memoir from yet another judge. It marks instead the end of an era on the Supreme Court and in the broader swath of American law and politics."
--- Andrew Cohen, The Atlantic

"Coming from the last of a dying breed of jurists who genuinely believe you can learn something from everyone if you just listen hard enough, it is a lesson in how, at the Supreme Court, civility and cordiality matter more, even, than doctrine."
--- Dahlia Lithwick, Washington Post

About the Author

Justice John Paul Stevens served on U.S. Supreme Court from 1975 until his retirement in 2010. He is the third-longest serving Justice in American history. Born in Chicago, Illinois in 1920, Stevens served in the United States Navy during World War II and graduated from Northwestern University School of Law. He was appointed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 1970 by President Richard Nixon and to the Supreme Court in 1975 by Gerald Ford. He was the author of two other books, Five Chiefs and The Making of a Justice. Justice Stevens passed away in 2019.

Product details

  • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B00GM0P55M
  • Publisher ‏ : ‎ Little, Brown and Company; Illustrated edition (February 18, 2014)
  • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 18, 2014
  • Language ‏ : ‎ English
  • File size ‏ : ‎ 4.4 MB
  • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
  • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages
  • Customer Reviews:
    4.3 out of 5 stars 337 ratings

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
John Paul Stevens

John Paul Stevens

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read book recommendations and more.

Customer reviews

4.3 out of 5 stars
337 global ratings

Review this product

Share your thoughts with other customers
Write a customer review

Customers say

Customers find the book thought-provoking and well-written, with excellent reasoning throughout. Moreover, they appreciate its historical accuracy, with one customer noting how the author places conclusions on firm historical facts. Additionally, the book receives positive feedback for its sensible advice and readability.

AI-generated from the text of customer reviews

Select to learn more

57 customers mention "Pacing"48 positive9 negative

Customers find the pacing of the book excellent and thought-provoking, with one customer noting it is a well-written Constitutional analysis.

"...This is not a revolutionary tome. Rather it is a scholarly work that not only explains the background of the amendments discussed, but is a well..." Read more

"...people...we can all definitely learn and benefit from these well-elucidated commentaries. Congratulations, Mr. Stevens." Read more

"...It's very easy to read, despite what can be somewhat technical subject matter. However, I deduct a star because the book fails on several counts...." Read more

"...this subject, and is described by others as a man of great intellect and integrity...." Read more

28 customers mention "Readability"28 positive0 negative

Customers find the book enjoyable and important to read, with one customer noting it's a fast read.

"I found Justice Stevens' great book thought-provoking and a welcome step in the direction of cleaning up some points of confusion and even injustice..." Read more

"...Primarily, this is intended as a persuasive book, but while Stevens adequately (if only just) demonstrates the existence of each problem, he devotes..." Read more

"...reading the Chapter on "Campaign Finance" in Stevens' very interesting book, Six Amendments...." Read more

"...Worthwhile reading whether you agree or not." Read more

20 customers mention "Advice level"20 positive0 negative

Customers find the book's advice sensible and well-reasoned, with one customer noting it is both intriguing and practical.

"...the background of the amendments discussed, but is a well reasoned recommendation for change...." Read more

"...His ideas are sensible and relevant, though written in legal-speak...." Read more

"...So read it anyhow. His recommendations are well worth consideration." Read more

"The six amendments proposed by John Paul Stevens are very sensible and will lead to clarification of the constitution from the perspective of modern..." Read more

9 customers mention "Historical accuracy"9 positive0 negative

Customers appreciate the historical accuracy of the book, finding it fascinating and well-researched, with one customer noting how the author places conclusions on firm historical facts.

"...-lawyer with curiosity, it was very approachable and provided excellent historical context for each of these valuable points." Read more

"Intriguing as well as practical...." Read more

"...His "cases" for change are thoroughly historically documented, which makes them much more insightful...." Read more

"...He researches the issues with solid historiographical skill and places his conclusions on firm historical facts." Read more

Top reviews from the United States

  • Robert D. Barwick
    5.0 out of 5 stars Well Reasoned and Thoughtful--But it Takes a Little Work (And a Revision of a Rating Star Error)
    Reviewed in the United States on October 7, 2015
    Verified Purchase
    I found Justice Stevens' great book thought-provoking and a welcome step in the direction of cleaning up some points of confusion and even injustice in the administration of our Constitution. Somehow my initial review was published with one star--which I certainly did not intend. Perhaps I had been reading Hebrew that day and read the number of stars from right to left. The number is edited herewith to five.

    A few caveats are in order. First, depending on one's political leanings, the points made by Justice Stevens may be welcomed or abhored. It is necessary to keep an open mind and to read each point before making a judgment with respect to the issue that it discusses. I found myself agreeing with the justice in five of six instances – not bad. As one who instinctively mistrusts the federal government and who believes that it is totally out of hand, I cannot agree with his anti-commandeering suggestion since I would place more heavy constraints on the power of the federal government to intervene in numerous matters. In particular I certainly wouldn't trust the federal judiciary to impose its will on the states except in cases involving interstate matters whether it be the state judiciary or other law-enforcement or legislative bodies. Stated in another fashion, I hold that the Justice Stevens' cure does not go sufficiently far in reining in the proclivity of the court to legislate new law by interpreting the constitution to meet its majority view of the world as it may exist from time to time. To state that the court has been "politicized" is to engage in extreme understatement.

    Since my initial review of this fine book, the current election campaign has ignited or fanned the flames of the gun control debate. Long before I read the book I held the opinion that the modern construction of the second amendment is simply wrong. Justice Stevens obviously agrees. The constitution should not be used to justify or prohibit the ownership and use of guns for purposes other than national or local defense (both of which a "militia" might justifiably address). Wherever one might land on the gun control argument, the matter should be settled by legislation without reference to the constitution except as regards the matter of the "militia". Sooner or later the constitution should be modified by amendment as suggested by the good justice or the courts should stop misinterpreting the matter. The language offered by Justice Stevens would accomplish this goal quite well.

    A second caveat is that the book requires both a little work in following the good justice's reasoning and in being capable of doing so. Some people without legal training will have difficulty following his reasoning or the background of the problem he describes. Each of these issues can be handled and a little effort in that direction is well spent.

    In sum I found the book a great read and heartily recommend it to thinking people.
    2 people found this helpful
    Helpful
     Report
  • Phoenix57237
    4.0 out of 5 stars Writing and subject is great but physical book is not
    Reviewed in the United States on April 1, 2024
    Verified Purchase
    I finally got the book after the return window closed. The book has several loose pages. I have never had this issue with a book from Amazon. Amazon and the publisher should do a better job of quality control. Also I noticed the the inserts are nowhere to be found in the book. I assume they where not include the book I bought. The exhibits were in the middle of a different chapter.
    Helpful
     Report
  • Donald Cripe
    5.0 out of 5 stars Outstanding analysis
    Reviewed in the United States on May 9, 2014
    Verified Purchase
    Home Run!!! Justice Stevens has written a short, easily read Constitutional analysis that the layperson will understand and appreciate. The beauty of the book is the perspective of the author who sat as a Supreme Court Justice while many of the issues discussed were, in one way or another, considered by the Court.

    This is not a revolutionary tome. Rather it is a scholarly work that not only explains the background of the amendments discussed, but is a well reasoned recommendation for change. As a lawyer, I strongly recommend this book to law students and new lawyers. It will put them light years ahead of their peers on the issues presented.
    One person found this helpful
    Helpful
     Report
  • thinkingreader
    5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Book
    Reviewed in the United States on May 1, 2014
    Verified Purchase
    Mr. Stevens displays the sum of his experience and learned judgment in this concise review of what he feels are the Amendments most in need of updating and clarification. As opposed to those with knee-jerk, uneducated political views of the Constitution based on nothing more than personal prejudices, Mr. Stevens bases his opinions on hard historical events, judicial thought and moral/ethical considerations. One may not agree with his suggestions, but one should definitely reward them with objective thought and consideration. Mr. Stevens has given the gift of wisdom and experience in his judicial writings to the people...we can all definitely learn and benefit from these well-elucidated commentaries. Congratulations, Mr. Stevens.
    2 people found this helpful
    Helpful
     Report
  • William Springer
    3.0 out of 5 stars Short and easy to read, but ultimately unsatisfying
    Reviewed in the United States on April 23, 2014
    Verified Purchase
    In the wake of the unprecedented level of gerrymandering that followed the 2010 elections, as well as the Supreme Court's gutting of the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance laws, it has become very clear that a constitutional amendment may be required in order to preserve the right to vote in this country. While I have not read Stevens' previous book, I've heard good things about his writing, so I've been looking forward to reading his latest offering. It was announced early on that he would take on the second amendment, which guaranteed that the book would be controversial, but I was more interested in the other five amendments he intended to offer. Although Stevens spent nearly 35 years on the high court, he seems to feel that it has taken on excessive power, and here he advocates returning power to the people's representatives in Congress.

    After a quick review of the successful amendments thus far, Stevens proceeds to a discussion of the Supremacy Clause and whether the federal government can compel state officials to enforce federal law, given that the language specifically calls out judges ("and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby"); he recommends adding the words "and other public officials", with the reasoning that often state officials are in the best position to enforce federal law. Stevens clearly considers this to be a clarification rather than a change, but one which would overturn past rulings of the court.

    The second chapter moves on to what I would consider one of the greatest threats to democracy: political gerrymandering. While few people have much good to say about gerrymandering (indeed, Stephens opens with a quote from Antonin Scalia describing severe partisan gerrymanders as incompatible with democratic principles), thus far the courts have declined to step in other than to prevent racial gerrymanders. Oddly enough, Stevens weakens the impact of his argument by using older examples of gerrymandering that left the minority party with fewer seats than they could reasonably expect have gotten based on their share of the vote, while ignoring the more egregious gerrymandering that happened after the 2010 elections and in some cases allowed the Republican party to capture a supermajority of seats in 2012 while getting a minority of the vote. He argues, and I would agree, that having compact districts is more important than making sure each one has exactly the same number of people (while the numbers should be approximately equal, I would argue that a 1% difference in size does far less damage than the....interesting...shapes of today's congressional districts).

    In chapter three, we move on to campaign finance. Congress has always tried to impose limits on political spending in order to avoid corruption. Most recently, the debate has been over whether Congress can limit the aggregate amount that an individual can donate to political campaigns and whether non-human entities (such as corporations and unions) can spend without restriction. So far the most interesting option I've seen (although one not mentioned in this book) is to expand the current prohibition on election spending by people who are not US citizens to say that money spent to promote or oppose a candidate may only come from people who could legally vote for or against that candidate. Of course, any one restriction we put into place may be gamed; Stevens suggests an amendment simply stating that Congress and the states may impose reasonable limits on how much candidates and their supporters may spend in election campaigns. Reasonable, of course, would be defined by the appropriate lawmakers.

    Moving on, chapter four covers a somewhat more obscure topic: sovereign immunity. Under common law, the king could not be sued without his consent, and the states have assumed this power to themselves (and solidified it with the 11th amendment, which prohibits federal courts from ruling on suits brought against a state by citizens of another state (or another country). More recently (although this isn't covered in the chapter, and the court has never given it much credence) we've seen claims that states can invalidate federal law under the 10th amendment. The proposed amendment for this chapter clarifies that a state and its agencies and officers are subject to the Constitution and to acts of Congress.

    In chapter five, we consider the death penalty. Does it fall under the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? Should it be decided at the federal level, rather than state by state? Stevens recommends adding the words "such as the death penalty" to the prohibition in the 8th amendment. I found this to be the weakest chapter in that nothing herein will convince anyone not already opposed to the death penalty that a problem exists.

    Chapter six, on gun control, is disappointingly short. As expected, Stevens covers the history of judicial rulings on the second amendment, through the 5-4 votes in 2008 and 2010 (District of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, respectively) that expanded the right to keep a handgun and limited the right of the government to outlaw handguns. The topic guaranteed that this would be the most controversial chapter in the book, and I had hoped Stevens would make use of that attention by giving an in-depth treatment of how the second amendment has been interpreted throughout the history of the country, but instead the coverage of the historical record is minimal. The purpose of this chapter is primarily to argue that Congress, not the courts, should be charged with deciding on the proper regulation of guns.

    As to my rating, I start out by giving the book four stars for entertainment and education. It's very easy to read, despite what can be somewhat technical subject matter. However, I deduct a star because the book fails on several counts. Primarily, this is intended as a persuasive book, but while Stevens adequately (if only just) demonstrates the existence of each problem, he devotes no space to convincing the reader that his proposed amendment is the optimal way to deal with that problem. In fact, not enough space is devoted to the book in general; it weighs in at only 168 pages, not particularly lengthy given the subject matter, and only 2/3 of that is the actual book, the remainder being taken up by illustrations, the text of the Constitution, etc. Overall, the book is a disappointment, not only because it fails to accomplish its goal of convincing the reader to support Steven's preferred solutions to the various problems mentioned, but because of the wasted opportunity that a book by a man in his position had to more fully inform the public.

    This review originally appeared on Vulcan Ears Book Reviews (vulcanears.com)
    106 people found this helpful
    Helpful
     Report

Top reviews from other countries

Translate all reviews to English
  • Bruno Santos Cunha
    5.0 out of 5 stars John Paul Steves e suas seis propostas de emenda à Constituição dos EUA
    Reviewed in Brazil on January 5, 2021
    Verified Purchase
    Em “Six Amendments: how and why we should change the Constitution”, o ex-juiz (justice) da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos John Paul Stevens descreve, a partir de sua experiência de quase 40 anos como magistrado (sendo quase 35 anos como membro da Suprema Corte), seis emendas que faria à Constituição Americana.

    A fim de bem ilustrar suas proposições de alteração à Constituição, Stevens faz uma breve narrativa sobre os seis temas que aborda, sobretudo levando em consideração os precedentes da Suprema Corte sobre tais temas e os votos vencidos nesses julgamentos.

    Os temas trazidos nas propostas abordam desde regras e doutrinas maid técnicas de “cooperação” ou “comando / controle” de autoridades estaduais a partir de normativos e regras federais (doutrina do anti-commandeering) até temas mais vistosos e polêmicos como financiamento eleitoral, pena de morte e controle sobre posse / porte de armas.

    Inegavelmente – de forma expressa, ou, algumas vezes, mesmo que de forma indireta em seus votos –, é possível dizer que Stevens sempre foi um juiz alinhado com a ala progressista da política americana. Nesse ponto, suas propostas traduzem algumas das reivindicações clássicas de tal ala politica.

    Em um tom pessoal – e analisando as propostas de Stevens –, consigo concordar com duas ou três de suas seis propostas. De toda forma, a leitura é bastante interessante e informativa, sobretudo com a utilização de diversos julgados históricos da Suprema Corte.
    Report
  • Doug Drew
    5.0 out of 5 stars A voice in the wilderness
    Reviewed in Canada on May 19, 2014
    Verified Purchase
    A rational voice in an irrational world. Beautifully reasoned but it will never happen in the current irrational political climate as our democracy continues to erode.
    Report
  • Arthur Doohan
    5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
    Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 21, 2018
    Verified Purchase
    Good quality, would repeat
    Report
  • J. E. JORDAN
    4.0 out of 5 stars Talk about Speaking from Experience !
    Reviewed in Germany on June 16, 2014
    Verified Purchase
    This isn't an easy book to read, as most substantive legal discussions are not -- even when they are intended for a general readership. But, I take it to mean Stevens doesn't talk down to the general public. I admire him for writing this; it's almost like he's a whistle-blower, someone who's been on the inside and can tell us what is not working right.

    He doesn't go into how these amendments might garner enough political support to pass, but he does give a good bit of background on how and why the Constitution has been amended in the past. This is some really good stuff. Perhaps not surprisingly, most of those changes have come when the courts have made decisions that logically follow from case history or the Constitution itself, yet are not at all what the voting population wishes. Perhaps voters' have changed their sensibilities over time (as with the death penalty or allowing 18 year olds or women to vote) or the courts are having to make subsequent rulings, due to precedents, that voters wouldn't like if they knew what was going on (as with anti-commandering or some other arcane topics.)

    I think the firearms amendment is especially interesting. Stevens claims that our understanding of the 2nd amendment to mean that the individual has an unlimited right to bear arms is relatively new and that for most of US history that little introductory phrase about "well-regulated militia(s)" was interpreted to mean that the states had the right to be armed without interference from the national government. Interesting. Maybe there's hope that we can wrest firearm-ownership from the language of "civil rights."

    Whether you agree with the six amendments he suggests (and many people will not), I think he has suggested some reasonable changes to our current Constitution.

    I felt like the book ended a little abruptly. I even went back to make sure I hadn't skipped a concluding chapter. I'm not sure anything was missing, though -- just a concluding sentence or two.

    I'd definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in the Supreme Court, history, political science, etc.
    Report

Report an issue


Does this item contain inappropriate content?
Report
Do you believe that this item violates a copyright?
Report
Does this item contain quality or formatting issues?
Report