Hi! Thank you for taking time to post. You make an interesting point regarding the Federalist Papers. For some, they are a direct pipeline into the minds of the founders. They were, as noted, akin to sales brochures.
And so it goes. The Constitution has many faces, depending upon what the reader brings to it.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Sent from my old PC, using a cheap keyboard.
Actually, the Federalist Papers were written by just 3 men: John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton who wrote the vast majority of them. However, these essays only provided a concept of how our government could be formed and laid out the pros and cons of power each branch of government would wield. For specifics as to what the Framers might have meant or intended on any given phrase of the Constitution, you'd have to refer to the volume of
Congressional notes from the period much of which can be found here.
Now, I agree that due to changing times, Amendments thereto, and thus, any given situation certain aspects of the Constitution can be interpreted differently. Take, for example, gun rights. (If I'm interpreting the ruling correctly...) Until U.S. vs Hiller, the Supreme Court hadn't interpreted gun rights (hand guns) to apply to all citizens except as part of "a well trained militia", i.e., law enforcement or military. That right to bear arms was somewhat convoluted seeing that a police officer - though he had access to a departmental issued hand gun - s/he couldn't go out and purchase a hand gun for personal use. That changed with Hiller and so, too, did the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment where the right to bear arms was concerned.
I won't argue the right or wrong of it, but I will say that since the Hiller ruling, there's been a massive explosion of personal firearms in America.
The same type of argument could be said for the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, i.e., gay marriage. Again, not arguing the right or wrong of it. Just saying that based on so many other things that came before it where people's basic human rights were being violated based solely on their sexual orientation, the freedom to "enter into a binding contract" to marry whomever you wanted (within statutory limits) was bound to come up against a brick wall sooner or later.
The General Welfare clause...similar thing, i.e., ObamaCare/Medicaid expansion. With ballooning health insurance cost and the shared expense between employer and employee and the fact that in many cases private health insurance isn't portable should one lose their job, this issue is bound to come up before the Supreme Court again at some point in the near future.
Property rights, i.e., slavery and citizenship thereto prior to the 13th and 14th Amendments.
I say all that to say this: IMHO, the U.S. Constitution does have limits. However, those limitations are only as restraining as: 1) The states via Congress ratifying amendments to said supreme law; and 2) SC Justices' interpretation of the subservient laws that bind themselves to the Constitution, i.e., the decision as to whether a law is constitutional or not. Otherwise, the U.S. Constitution stands on its own. The limits aren't necessarily with the document itself. It's in the laws and the interpretations thereto that stand along side it.
