George Saunders Quotes

That text is known to them that have the patience to read it, possibly one one-hundredth of one percent of the denizens. They forget it, all save a few Western states. I think somebody in Dakota once read it. The Constitution.

It is time... to end the long-standing and unproductive methodological debate over 'originalism' versus 'dynamism' or 'evolution' and focus instead on how, as a substantive matter, we should interpret the Constitution in the twenty-first century, and what it has to say on questions unimaginable to our eighteenth-century Framers.

I think that he was responsible for putting the flesh and bones on the Constitution.

People seem to be concerned about the Constitution of the United States only when it pertains to something that is of concern to them.

David Addington does not believe in the Constitution

I think it makes no difference whether or not I endorse it. The Constitution is as the Supreme Court interprets it and I must conform to this and do my best to see that it is carried out in this country.

Now whatever you think of the liberal agenda on its merits, until very recently nobody thought the Constitution meant what liberals now say it means.

We say, that the Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God.

You either believe in the Constitution, or you don't.

When you ask yourself, whoever you are, that think you're going to support Donald Trump, think, do you believe in the Constitution? Are you going to change the Constitution?

I taught the Constitution for ten years, I believe in the Constitution.

I am a constitutionalist. I believe in the constitution. I don't believe in altering the constitution.

My touchstone for every question is the Constitution.

True fans of the Constitution, like true fans of the national pastime, acknowledge the critical role of human judgment in making tough calls. We don't expect flawless interpretation. We expect good faith. We demand honesty.

If you take a position under the Constitution that is against the majority view, you have to explain it well enough that maybe you can persuade some of that majority to agree with you.

The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.

Over the course of 19 years on the Supreme Court, I learned some lessons about the Constitution of the United States.

Knowing constitutional law helps one at the opera. The trial in 'Billy Budd,' as example, invokes the fugitive slave clause of the U.S. Constitution.

No one familiar with the common law of England can read the Constitution of the United States without observing the great desire of the Convention which framed that instrument to make it conform as far as possible with that law.

The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.

The appropriate relation of the exercise of constitutional power to the legitimate objects of that power is always a subject of judicial scrutiny.

The framers of the constitution were very literate men and they could write very well. When they wrote that “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” they meant NO LAW. If they had wanted to have some laws or an emergency law, they would not have written, “NO LAW.” They were expert at the English language.

Do judges follow the Constitution? Well, Yes and No. They follow the Constitution as they understand it.

Americans have to have a link with their Constitution. They have to understand it in the context of their own time.

Day by day, case by case, the Supreme Court is designing a constitution for a country that I do not recognize.