Amit Shah Quotes

In our system of democracy, our government works on a system of checks and balances. Instead of stripping power from the courts, I believe we should follow the process prescribed in our Constitution - consideration of a Constitutional amendment.

The U.S. Constitution is the basic framework for the greatest democracy on Earth. Some of my colleagues find it easy to amend it. I don't.

The current Michigan Constitution was written in 1961 and '62.

When Federal law conflicts with state laws and the will of the American people, it's time to change the laws, not circulate edicts.

You don't need lawyers making laws. Regular citizens can make laws. Let the lawyers work under the laws.

The American Constitution is the greatest governing document, and at some 7,000 words, just about the shortest.

Our constitution got built around the idea of minority protection.

The U.S. constitution is an extraordinary document. In my view, it should not be amended often.

A corollary is that, when laws are out of touch with the people, those laws can and should be changed - from the most simple local regulations to the highest law of the land, our federal Constitution.

The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.

This is a time for a national conversation. A conversation about the document that binds us as a nation and a people. That document, of course, is the Constitution.

If Moses had gone to Harvard Law School and spent three years working on the Hill, he would have written the Ten Commandments with three exceptions and a saving clause.

Our laws need to reflect the evolution of technology and the changing expectations of American society. This is why the Constitution is often called a 'living' document.

Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy - judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes - because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences.

If a radical devolution of powers was possible, it would have been done before. The assumption of states' rights is gone. There's no support for it in the Supreme Court and there's no support for it in public opinion.

People now do not want a constitution framed for them by their representatives—they want to pass on each section of it themselves.

If you love the parliamentary system and are totally devoted to it ... that has to survive above all else, above your own individual thoughts about philosophy.

Our constitution is a conservative document. It's a document which is established to maintain the status quo unless a an overwhelming majority to change that status quo can be martialed.

The reason it takes so long to pass legislation is to give each and every one of you an opportunity to be heard.

The Members of the Parliament shall be bound solely by their own conscience and not by any directions given by their electors.

It is a duty of those entrusted with the administration of their affairs to conform themselves to the decided choice of their constituents.

The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.

The great advantage of representatives is their capacity of discussing public affairs. For this, the people collectively are extremely unfit, which is one of the chief inconveniences of a democracy.

… courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws

The whole point of the Constitution is to limit at some point and in some way popular will.