I thank the senator for his questions, forgive me as its thanksgiving, i'll try to give the best answers I can and I can follow up if anyone needs clarification.
1. You recently voted against ratification of the Public Interest Amendment. May I ask whether you feel that the powers granted by the amendment are already justified in the Constitution, or are you opposed to any extension of Senate legislative power whatsoever? In particular, do you feel that environmental regulations and a universal health care system would be outside the realm of the federal government? Do you feel that a federal law restricting the use of asbestos would be unconstitutional without the Public Interest Amendment, as some have argued?
Admittedly, senator, I voted against the amendment in my capacity as a private citizen (voting based on public policy and ideological reasons). As far as the court is concerned, I am much more interested in reaching the right/correct legal result than I am in the preferred ideological one.
I guess my concern with the amendment is that I am concerned about the broad nature, especially from my ideological perspective, in which it is constructed. While the aims behind the amendment could be quite benign and intent to benefit atlasia and its citizens, the amendment could be applied to so many situations beyond the calculations of the senators or citizens voting in favor it it. Given my expectation that the people would ratify it, I just wished to register my desire for caution in some way.
That said, I can see why the proponents of the amendment pushed for its enactment. Atlasia lacks (perhaps lacks isn't the right word) a commerce clause reaching as far as its American component.
For comparison
Atlasia: (From Art 1, Sec 5)
US
It does not mean that in the absence of the proposed amendment that any of the above listed regulations or policy ideas are per se unconstitutional, but their footing is far more tenuous. In my view, someone would have to make an argument that an environmental regulation or health care plan violates the constitution (as moving party carries the burden here). While those aforementioned policy plans have less grounding without the amendment, it is my reading of the rest of Art I, Sec 5, that the constitution at least gives some room for economic, environmental, and health regulation. To what extent may only be elucidated through legal inquiry.
While I find Jesus a very amusing and friendly poster, I was offended by what I felt he did to Dazzleman's wiki profile. In the interest of disclosure, I still communicate with Dazzleman privately and consider him a friend, as forummers go. I understand that many others do not share this opinion of him. Reasonable minds can differ (as long as their objections are based in reason).
Initially, I felt Jesus may have committed a fairly serious crime, as Atlasia is concerned...however as the case and evidence developed...I realized, that as far as the statute goes, little could or should be done.
And perhaps Jesus' action actually did a service to Atlasia, in reminding us that when we draft criminal statutes (for whatever purpose we need them here, we need element based statutes that take into account, the action, the mental state, the attendant circumstances etc...)
I hope it won't influence my decisions at all. In reality, it may and hopefully the extent it does it minimal. As I said earlier, I want the correct legal decisions, not the preferential ideological ones. If I get the best of both worlds, so be it, but in the legal realm...ideology is not a conscious factor. Indeed, it may influence my reading of the law, but a chief justice is only first among equals and there should be two other people constantly challenging my reading and logic so that collectively, we reach the correct result.
I thank the senator and apologize for my delay.
