Better speak with Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts then. The dissent in the latest case in Oregon was wrong. Justice Thomas dissented but for a different reason. Scalia and Roberts dissented based on the supremacy of the federal government in matters that involves the citizens of the respective states, a clear violation of Madison's intent (as outlined in Federalist #45)
Mill and Durbin believe that not only the feds, but the states and local communities have no business legislating anything remotely connected to morality, and that they become tyrannies if they get anywhere near it. Meanwhile, the Founders (and Earley and I) recognized that freedom could not be absolute, and that some minor restrictions chosen by local democracy would be necessary.
I understand Mills' view quite well thank you. I also understand the Republican party, as noted by the nomination of Alito and Roberts, intend for certain issues to be determined by the federal judiciary. Issues that are none of their business (see Federalist #81, even the worthless Hamilton could hit on the right idea now and again).
Where did Roberts, Scalia or Alito expand federal power in such a manner?
Most recent decisions? Alright
Scalia -- Gonzales v Raich
Alito-- US v. Rybar
And we'll not even discuss the reasoning the Executive Branch apparently has no bounds as advocated by Roberts.
I'll research and come back to you. But...
And we'll not even discuss the reasoning the Executive Branch apparently has no bounds as advocated by Roberts.
Quote to back that up, please. There is no way he said any such thing.