I disagree, though.
The fact that law is vague and really unenforceable makes it difficult to square with the idea that his support springs from some core constitutional belief.
But by supporting the law (both now and in 2000), he gives weight to the idea that the federal government has the right to assume such powers that are specifically denied it by the constitution.
That makes me see it as a purely political calculation, designed only to increase his support amongst moderates at the expense of conservatives.