a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment
I don't know Roberts' stance on gay marriage, but I highly doubt he has taken any public stance as such would go against judicial ethics. They aren't supposed to opine on issues not before the court. I find the first theory fascinating and likely. I especially enjoy it because I think most people would find it odd today in light of the massive expansion of the power of the federal government through the Commerce Clause over the last century. The drafters' expectations were clearly so radically different from what we've ended up with. I think Hamilton truly believed that the document so clearly was one of limited enumerated rights of the federal government, that he could not conceive of such a large and far reaching federal government like we have today existing under the Constitution. As such, he saw the need to enumerate personal rights as somewhat ridiculous. It says a lot about how radically the federal government's role has expanded in America since its inception.