Thank you for your questions.
I think all protected free speech should be viewed the same by the courts. I think the greater question that has been recently posed is how to define protected speech. Hate speech has been a prominent subject in our country, and while while many in our nation don’t like what is being said, hate speech inherently is protected free speech. There are limits, such as speech that incites violence, libel or copyright violations. I think with all of these limits, we have precedence to look at in determining future cases. A specific example that I remember studying in college would be Brandenburg v. Ohio, ruling speech that promotes lawless action is not protected.
I consider “bear arms” as a personal right for Atlasians to own firearms. I think the wording that was adopted in the constitution requires a strict interpretation that I would uphold. There are certain reasonable restrictions in terms of what gun ownership can look like - the prime example I can think of being regions restricting access to hunt animals for support when not in season and only in approved areas for public safety.
Our Bill of Rights offers a number of protections, such as the privacy of having your own beliefs, warrantless search of your home. I think the Constitution serves to ensure that the government does not infringe on privacy, though I do think that the right to privacy must be weighed with compelling interests of the government. I think any effort to restrict privacy should be carefully weighed and supported as a need for public safety.
I think it stays as intrastate commerce unless the transaction takes place outside of the region.
Well, my hometown in Indiana’s motto is “Mayberry of the Midwest” so I have a natural bias towards Andy Griffith/Matlock. What I admire about Matlock is that as a criminal defense attorney, in many episodes he is defending people that the population at-large wants locked away for years. I admire his commitment to justice as he knows that defending these people doesn’t make him popular with neighbors, but it is the right thing to do.
Going with Atticus Finch - To Kill a Mockingbird was one of my favorite books as a child. For a reason similar to Matlock, I think he showed to be of high integrity and avoided public pressure by arguing that the law and justice should apply equally to everyone, regardless of skin color.
I’ve always been a fan of Clarence Thomas and think he has played the biggest role in determining my views of the constitution and supporting the original intent of the founders. I would like to note that I think the biggest argument against original intent in America has been the time lapse from when the constitution was ratified. Here in Atlasia, we are working with a constitution that was recently written by many who still play the game and we are able to rely on threads that outline their reasoning for specific clauses. I believe that interpreting the constitution as written is vitally important - if people have disagreements with what is in the constitution, there is a system in place to amend it. An opinion Harlan also had was that people sometimes try to use the judiciary system as a catalyst for change and that is inappropriate - I agree. I wouldn’t use the bench as an advocacy tool to implement changes I felt were necessary in our country.
Please let me know if you require further elaboration on any of these answers or if you have any additional questions. Thank you again.
