The recent Op-Ed piece by retired USSC Justice John Paul Stevens opined that the Second Amendment ought to be repealed. He knows it would never happen, of course, because of the super-majority requirements in Article V, so exactly how he thinks it would be repealed is a mystery. Based on his own history on the Court, he probably advocates a Supreme Court case where the USSC just, on its own, says, "Fuck it. Done. It's repealed." But here's the thing: Why doesn't anyone in Congress use a failed Amendment to shut off discussion of Left Wing talking points? Why not actually introduce an Amendment repealing the Second Amendment, and watch it go down in flames? For another example, much of the Left Wing believes that there ALREADY IS a Constitutional "right of privacy," that prevents the State from, say, criminalizing sodomy. Or restricting marriage to a man and a woman. Or prohibiting abortion. But a close inspection of the Constitution reveals that there is no such right in the Constitution or any Amendment, and it was created in the minds of Leftist USSC justices, and now we are all stuck with it. So why doesn't some CONSERVATIVE legislator propose an Amendment to the Constitution, formalizing the Right of Privacy, with enough detail (the Amendment are usually very general in nature) to make it clear that the new "right" legalizes abortion, mandates gay marriage, and so on? So rather than allowing the USSC to make these broad and far reaching changes to the Constitution, we'll put it to a vote. And it will fail, of course. And in failing, it will clarify and finalize the point that the States are free to legislate in these areas, as they all did originally, and as they are entitled to under the Constitution. A similar proposed Constitutional Amendment could close off all of the bizarre bullshit in connection with the death penalty. The Amendment would say, "The Death Penalty is hereby abolished in all cases and in all courts within the United States." And again, it would fail, (a) making it crystal clear that the death penalty IS constitutional, and also that (b) each state has the right to abolish it if they choose to do so within their borders. And maybe the States would stop pussyfooting around about whether one lethal injection or another is "cruel," or might cause some discomfort in the person being executed. My favorite would be an Amendment that says, "Anyone born within the geographical limits of the United States or its Territories is a United States Citizen, with all of the privileges and immunities associated therewith!" As we watch that one go down in flames - as it surely would - we could also acknowledge that there is no such provision in place now, and that the Supreme Court verbiage to that effect was DICTA, and not binding. But I guess I'm rambling now.