Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

This is sad and funny at the same time. William Kristol's window of opportunity for getting right with Donald Trump is rapidly closing. Does he not realize that Republicans have tried winning with establishment candidates (John McCain, Mitt Romney) the past two election cycles? Where did it get us? And please spare us the bit about Trump lacking "principles." Everyone has principles; some are articulate and some are not. Kristol may not like Trump's principles, but many others do.

What we know is this: Trump will seal the border, stop the insanity that is free trade, rebuild our military, and get the economy moving again. He will appoint the very best people to cabinet positions. He will eliminate a great deal of the waste, fraud, and abuse that makes government so inefficient and costly. As for health care, there is no reason this country can't provide for everyone. Conservatism is not libertarianism. I'm not saying I like ObamaCare, because I don't. I despise the individual mandate and the subsidies to insurance companies.

The wealthiest people in society (those who earn over $1,000,000 per year, for example) should have to pay significantly more income tax, the proceeds to be earmarked for health care for the needy. Yes, my position on health care is changing. I'm abandoning the last vestiges of my youthful libertarianism and becoming a better conservative.

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, an unabashed political progressive, says that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's jurisprudential method (originalism) did not constrain him, as Scalia claimed it did. The implication is that Scalia was result-oriented, like the "liberal" members of the Court Tribe so admires. Tribe thinks this is perfectly acceptable, even desirable. The Constitution, in his view, is a living document that must adapt to the times by being interpreted in light of contemporary values.

Tribe is wrong that originalism cannot constrain. That Justice Scalia abused his own method (let's assume for the sake of argument that he did this) doesn't mean that originalism, properly followed, cannot constrain. How could it not constrain? It requires that the judge interpret the Constitution in light of what was understood by its drafters and ratifiers. Any method of constitutional interpretation can be abused, just as any normative ethical theory can be abused. A method should be evaluated as properly applied, not as improperly applied.

Incidentally, Tribe says that some people are saying that Barack Obama should not nominate someone to the Court:

For literally the first time in American history, the party in control of the Senate is demanding that the president violate his constitutional duty to nominate someone to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

I haven't heard anyone say that. Have you? What people are saying is that, once Obama nominates someone, the Senate should either (1) refuse to hold hearings, (2) refuse to vote, or (3) vote against confirmation. The Senate has an explicit constitutional right to do the third of these things, and there is ample precedent for doing the first and second.

Here is an interview of Ayn Rand, by Tom Snyder. I saw it live many years ago. In watching part of it just now, I noticed that Rand butchered the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

Here.

Here.

I wish I had written this column, because it expresses my views exactly.

Spys (1982). An un(der)appreciated band.

To the Editor:

Re “Rubio and Trump Erupt in Shouts at Angry Debate” (front page, Feb. 26):

Can what occurred be called a debate? With the myriad issues facing this country and the world, one would think that a good, healthy debate on the issues would be welcome. Instead, what transpired was another evening of personal insults and the stretching of the truth: little policy, few ideas and a lack of civility from the three leading candidates.

What counted was only who won the insult race.

This “debate” showed no respect toward the American public and the good people from other countries and cultures who live, work and raise their families here. In addition, this incivility and the empty words were sadly perpetrated and encouraged by the media. This country deserves better.

SUSANNE STRENZ-THIBAULT

Orleans, Mass.

Note from KBJ: The letter writer must never have seen or heard Barack Obama, whose incivility knows no bounds. He is incapable of stating an opponent's argument fairly; he refuses to negotiate or compromise; he sides with black people whenever they have a conflict with a white person (even when he doesn't know the facts); he views the Constitution as something to be ignored or evaded rather than respected; he spews "empty words" (remember "hope and change"?); he ignores the will of the American people (ObamaCare); and, worst of all, he presumes to speak for Americans ("that's not who we are"). Can you say "worst president ever"? I'm counting the days until this thug leaves office.

See here.

Addendum: Someone show me where Jesus advocated coercion, in the form of A's taking money from B, without B's consent, to give to C. What Jesus advocated was charity (which means love). If the archbishop were charitable rather than coercive, he would advocate that his church, which is fabulously wealthy, give money to the working poor. The church could easily give everyone what the archbishop considers a living wage.

Addendum 2: I have nothing against Roman Catholicism. I go to mass every Sunday, like clockwork. I spend hours every day reading, thinking, and writing (not to mention teaching) about natural law, the institutional home of which is the Roman Catholic Church. What I object to is the hypocrisy of those inside the church, from Pope Francis on down. Put your money where your mouths are and stay out of American politics.

Here.