Trey Gowdy Quotes

Even the country's first president chafed at the limits placed on him by the writers of the U.S. Constitution. From the nature of the Constitution, ... I must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.

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.

It seems with every new day, we have a new veto threat from the president.

The powers that are surrendered [by Congress] to one President remain to be used by others.

When a President asserts constitutional powers he needs to be pretty certain he has those powers.

The President … does not originate laws or resolutions; he takes no part in the deliberations on them during their progress; he does not act in relation to them indirectly by advice or interference of any sort, until they have passed both houses: it is only when their operations are concluded that his power begins.

I think where I get frustrated at times was the belief that the president can do anything if he just decides he wants to do it.

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

The constitution has never greatly bothered any wartime President.

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.

I don’t know if President (George W.) Bush understood how extreme some of the arguments were about executive power that some people in his administration were making.

He [the President] has the power, but that does not mean that he has the legitimate, constitutional right to use it.

Are you willing to let any President choose what laws to enforce and what laws to change?

I think you have to be concerned about any presidential executive order because it has the power of law until it's knocked down by an act of Congress or a court.

No president has the right to say he is judge, jury and executioner.

If we are willing to concede the President dictatorial authority where we happen to agree with him, as liberals have tended to do over the years, we will have little chance of tying his hands when we do not....You will see why many of us in the Congress understand how Dr. Frankenstein must have felt when his creation ran amok.

I have allowed the president to pick his political appointees…But I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution.

The power given by the Constitution to the Executive to interpose his veto is a high conservative power; but in my opinion it should never be exercised except in cases of clear violation of the Constitution, or manifest haste and want of due consideration by Congress.

In going too far, they [presidents] have taken away the individual rights of American citizens.

No power but Congress can declare war, but what is the value of this constitutional provision, if the President of his own authority may make such military movements as must bring on war?

If a president can change some laws, can he change ALL laws? Can he change election laws? Can he change discrimination laws? Are there any laws, under your theory, that he actually HAS to enforce?

Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas-where we all understood he wanted authority to act-but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.

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.

The veto is a President's Constitutional right, given to him by the drafters of the Constitution because they wanted it as a checkagainst irresponsible Congressional action. The veto forces Congress to take another look at legislation that has been passed. I think this is a responsible tool for a president of the United States, and I have sought to use it responsibly.

The president doesn't have the authority to change the law or ignore the law, and that's what Obama tried to do.