Chief Justice John Roberts on why a Bill of Rights wasn't included in the Constitution

a thoughtful web.

commentspostsbadges

Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!

Chief Justice John Roberts on why a Bill of Rights wasn't included in the Constitution · 3

Neon_Ubermensch · 4904 days ago

fora.tv · #law

tweet · htmlmarkup tips · 0

mk · 4904 days ago · link ·

Interesting. The first theory strikes me as a bit odd. It sounds nice that "the people reserved everything that was not granted", however that seems to me to fail to protect a minority. That said, the authors probably didn't have the same ideas we do about whom rights should extend to. It's funny that Hamilton said that a list of rights would be exclusive. Of course, he was right, but I have to wonder if he imagined that the same rights should eventually extend to everyone.

Does anyone know if Robert's has a stand on gay marriage, btw? -That seems to be the next inclusion of a minority to the rights practiced by the majority.

+discuss+discuss

–

Neon_Ubermensch · 4904 days ago · link ·

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.

+discuss+discuss

–

mk · 4903 days ago · link ·

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 completely agree. However, I have to wonder where a weak federal government would have gotten us. Might we have state currencies, or regional unions? Interestingly, I think as technology advances, in some ways, regional decision-making is becoming better than a blanket system. That is, people are enabled to solve some problems on their own without turning to a extensive network or infrastructure.

In some ways, the Commerce Clause is the US government. However, it seems to me that the Federal government has gone beyond granted powers, and has entered the realm of assumed responsibility, or assumed authority. The action in Libya comes to mind. Has Congress authorized it? Does the current Administration worry about that authorization?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0622/On-Libya-Oba...

Of course, I am not blaming this administration in particular. Whoever is in the driver seat exercises this.