The retired Justice has a new book called "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution," and the WaPo op-ed is titled "Justice Stevens: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment." The op-ed went up yesterday and there are already nearly 3,000 comments. It's also #1 in "The Post Most" list in WaPo's sidebar. ("Most" what? Most clicked on? Most emailed? Most favored by whoever made the list?)
I'm only skimming the op-ed and reading the table of contents in the book, but how can this be any more than a literary device restating the Justice's old dissenting opinions as text to be inserted in the clauses of the Constitution that the majority interpreted in a manner he thinks is wrong? It's much too hard to amend the Constitution for any of this to be practical, and I doubt that Justice Stevens has any general serious enthusiasm for "fixing" the Constitution this way. If he gets to "fix" the Second Amendment — his text would cancel the individual right to bear arms — he's invigorating the movement to "fix" the Fourteenth Amendment by making the unborn into "persons." There's no end to this "fixing."
I remember listening to the agonizing of some of my colleagues over the Federal Marriage Amendment. My response was always: "That's not going to happen." Obviously not. Remember the old Flag Desecration Amendment? Didn't happen. If ever these things get anywhere near being taken seriously, our traditional, deep-rooted respect for the original document stirs to life.
Here's one iteration of that respect: