john paul stevens. >> the eighth amendment of the u.s. constitution reads quote excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. many believe the words cruel and unusual punishments apply to the death penalty, which is and of itself, for its abolition. and former supreme court judge john paul stevens is now one of the abolitionists. stephens, nominated by president gerald ford, served on the high court 1975 to 2010. in his new book, six amendments, how and why we should change the constitution, justice stephens proposes adding five words to the language of the eighth amendment. quote excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted. unquote. >> he wanted to revise the constitution, which now reads excessive bail shall not be ride required nor cruel and unusual punishments. constitution stops there. he wants the included such as the death penalty inflicted. >> could an antideath penalty constitu

penalty, which is a reason in and of itself for its abolition and former supreme court judge john paul stevens is now one of the abolitionists. stevens, nominated by president gerald ford, served on the high court from 1975 until 2010, 35 years. in his new book, six amendments, how and why we should change the constitution, justice stevens proposes adding five words to the language of the 8th amendment. quote, excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted, unquote. >> he wanted to revise the constitution, which now reads excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments. constitution stops there. he wants the following words included, such as the death penalty inflicted. question, could an antideath penalty constitutional amendment such as former justice stevens, who had enormous experience, proposed, could that pass today? >> no. >> pat, exit question? >> it could not get through either house of the congress of the united states and it needs three fourt

supreme court upheld indiana's photo id law, justice john paul stevens, a noted liberal on the courtho wrote the majority opinion said unfortunately, the u.s. had a long history of voter fraud in this country and those are facts. >> that's something that we know to be true. i think the voting rights act which we are here to discuss today was a very important piece of legislation. it was immensely successful, which we should all be proud of that and the way the country has changed today. and while there still are isolated cases of discrimination, which can be remedied in the court, we should all be happy that, in fact, today, americans regard, regardless of color, have the franchise and are able to decide in the ballot box who they want representing us. host: in addition to the heritage website, how can folks follow you on this issue? guest: i write a lot at national review online. i am a regular contributor there and i have many articles published at nro about voting andly issues. host: nicole austin-hillery, how can people follow you? guest: the brennan center website best way to fo