Cyril Ramaphosa Quotes

A new world has come into being since the Constitution was adopted. Are the narrow, limited necessities of the old thirteen states ... to remain the rule of interpretations?

Is there a man who will say that the Constitution wants no reform? Will any man be found to say that the Constitution is perfect?

Anybody who questions the validity of the Constitution, whether it works in the modern era, should never be president.

If the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the Nation ... be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable government, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers

Nobody knows exactly what that means ... It has become a wish list for people who want things in the Constitution.

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

Our greatest present disloyalty to the Constitution lies in the fact that we do not study and criticize it as did the men who devised and adopted it. They met novel and desperate situations by establishing unheard-of and revolutionary forms of government.

The Constitution is constant. There's not one elected official who has the power to change it. There is a way to amend the Constitution, and the Constitution spells out the procedures that must be taken to change it. Presidents cannot. Now, I know this is gonna shock many of you in the low-information community.

Under our [constitutional system] - either we're going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we're going to have to rethink our process of decision-making.

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

I'd love to thwart the Census form, but I want a constitutional basis for doing it - and here's the tricky thing. I think even constitutional purists would tell you that just because something isn't in the Constitution does not mean the government cannot do it.

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

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

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

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

I get nervous every time we start tinkering with the Constitution.

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

Our greatest present disloyalty to the Constitution lies in the fact that we do not study and criticize it as did the men who devised and adopted it.

It they do not succeed with the Constitution, then they must succeed without it.

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.

They [our founding fathers] saw the need from the very outset to improve the product [the Constitution].

In 'The Heritage Guide to the Constitution,' you find a most remarkable collection of scholarly work. Over a hundred people have contributed to explaining what the Constitution says, what it means, how it has been interpreted over the years, and how it is important to people today.

It's got to be both houses and the people coming together in unanimous decision when you start messing with the Constitution.

Every constitutional standard is engaged in difficult but important line-drawing.

What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional?