Chuck Todd Quotes

Our Constitution wisely assigns both joint and separate roles to each branch of the government; and a President and a Congress who hold each other in mutual respect will neither permit nor attempt any trespass.

When the president acts in absence of a congressional grant of authority, he can rely only upon his own independent powers. When the president takes measures incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb.

We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional.

I have a great deal of concern for any president and the amount of power they accumulate versus congress. I'm a stickler about the idea of separation of powers.

Under our Constitution, presidents have something called 'veto power.

This isn’t hyperbole to say that we are staring the death of democracy in the eyes, right now. The centerpiece of our democracy is that we observe court rulings. Criminal court rulings, civil court rulings and constitutional court rulings. No one is above the law. And whether we like it or not, the courts interpret the law. If the President of the United States says, ‘You know what, I don’t care what the courts say, I’m going to do whatever the hell I want,’ that’s essentially the end of the rule of law,” he declared. “Because if the President isn’t bound by our laws and the Constitution, then why would anybody else be bound by our laws and the Constitution? …. If they were to openly declare that because they disagree with, for instance, a court’s order to reopen USAID, or to get Elon Musk out of the Treasury Department, simply because on the merits, they disagree with the court’s ruling, then you are clearly in the most serious constitutional crisis.

I wish I could set deadlines for the Congress, but that's just not the way the Constitution is written.

The framers of our Constitution thought it was of critical, critical importance, in establishing three branches of government, that we have an independent judiciary. Therefore was that without that, the provisions of the constitution couldn’t be enforced

The framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things and provided for it by declaring the supremacy not only of itself but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is supreme law.

If our forefathers had wanted Congress to be the Commander in Chief, they would have said so.

I do not believe that we [Congress] should allow him [the President] to nullify acts of Congress by executive fiat. There is not one syllable in the Constitution which authorizes the President to exercise such power.

It would be a novel and dangerous doctrine that a legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence.

The power to make war is vested in Congress and not in the President. Congress has no constitutional authority to grant such authority to the president.

No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.

… take the Constitution out of cold storage!

I do not assert that a President and the Congress must on all points agree with each other at all times. Many times in history there has been complete disagreement between the two branches of the Government, and in these disagreements sometimes the Congress has won and sometimes the President has won.

Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn't place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.

I think executive orders with Donald Trump would be a very blunt instrument with respect to the Constitution.

Nothing is above the Constitution.

Executive privilege is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and thus is a very limited principle.

The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt reminded us that the Constitution is, and I quote, "a layman's document, not a lawyer's contract."

The important distinction so well understood in America between a constitution established by the people, and unalterable by the government; and a law established by the government, and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. Wherever the supreme power of legislation has resided, has been supposed to reside also, a full power to change the form of government.

If Congress were to censure, fine or otherwise try to punish a president, it would dramatically alter the balance of power between the branches.

We had so many different presidents, including Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln - there were other founders like Hamilton, Adams - who made it very clear that the courts can't make a law. The Constitution is expressly clear that that's a power reserved to Congress.