jlocke Free

Recent Comments

  1. 4 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    jhayesd31 – No. An originalist believes in the original intent and meaning of the written words in the Constitution – including the Amendments. It doesn’t mean zapping out of existence all the case law built up over 200 years determining the original intent and wording. However, I admit that some zapping may need to be done.

  2. 4 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    Okay. I understand your position. I disagree with it. I believe there is no “right” to an abortion in the Constitution. Therefore, it isn’t the SCOTUS’s purview.

  3. 4 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    I get so tired.

  4. 4 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    Not if it is an undue burden.

  5. 4 days ago on Michael Ramirez


  6. 4 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    I believe the Supreme Court was currently politicized by Roe v. Wade. This issue is too big for a nation the size of North America. It should have stayed localized in the states where the issue would have had thousands of nuanced positions depending on the local populations. The US Congress never passed such legislation, therefore there was no national consensus. Roe v. Wade forced what couldn’t be popularly agreed upon down everyone’s gullet. It pleased half the country and infuriated the other half. We are a diverse people and ruling from Washington DC rather than the individual states is dangerous. The Founders knew this. Ergo, a representative republic not a vast democracy.

  7. 4 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    braindead – the Supreme Court’s decisions are the Constitution.

    Let’s make this simple. Let’s say you are drinking with your buddies at the local pub. All four of you get exercised about global warming. You all throw some money into a hat to help the effort. You volunteer to send it to Al Gore with all of your best wishes for his efforts. That is a corporate contribution. Groups are made of individuals, by definition. However individuals wish to exercise their freedom of speech is up to them. It cannot be abridged.

  8. 4 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    Check the news today for the pro-Trump rallies in England.

  9. 4 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    The right to “keep and bear arms” has been interpreted many, many times by both the federal government and the individual states over many, many years. The thicket of gun laws in this country is huge. What we have today is a pretty well sorted out system. You cannot own a machine gun – unless you jump nearly impossible hurdles. Same with helicopter gunships, battleships, etc. You are making yourself worry about non-issues. Try “bump stocks” if you want to get involved. There is some movement going on in that direction. How would you interpret the words, " to keep and bear arms"?

  10. 4 days ago on Jim Morin

    No. I don’t see the parallels. Or, at least to any more parallels than accru normally to everything in the past. People used to try this game with the Second Coming. So far, no luck.