Constitutional Implications Quotes

I thought it was a joke at first, but the president did, in fact, authorize an autopen to sign the Patriot Act extension into law. Consider the dangerous precedent this sets. Any number of circumstances could arise in the future where the public could question whether or not the president authorized the use of an autopen.

The problem with article 50 of the Lisbon treaty is that it is not substantive in its content or conditions, and only concerns itself with procedural requirements.

No law made after a fact done, can make it a crime.

In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.

Whilst there are problems with Article 50, it is the statement of intent that is important.

As a candidate, Trump could make outlandish statements with little regard for their Constitutional implications. As President, he is pledged to respect the Constitution's authority, and the specific rights and protections it guarantees to every American citizen.

If the Constitution says that marriage is between a man and woman, then things that are inconsistent with that would be inconsistent with the Constitution.

I recommend … the expediency of authorizing the Executive to take temporary possession of any part of parts of said territory [Florida]….

Through its interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court hugely shapes the fabric of our society for us and for future generations.

Are cans constitutionally iffy? Whenever, that is, we say that we can do something, or could do something, or could have done something, is there an if in the offing--suppressed, it may be, but due nevertheless to appear when we set out our sentence in full or when we give an explanation of its meaning?

Treaties negotiated with foreign powers create binding obligations on future generations that cannot be repealed in the way that domestic law can. As a consequence, the most rigorous process should be in place to scrutinise such treaties before they ever come to be ratified.

The Government has correctly recognised that this E.U. law cannot all be changed into domestic law at once.

We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice [as some states charging high taxes on goods from other states] would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.

Sometimes momentous government action leaves everyone uncertain about the next move.

Once E.U. law ceases to be supreme it is unclear how this vast body of law, which will then be incorporated into our own domestic law, will be interpreted by our own courts.

Some of the state legislatures appear to have viewed the relative duties of the senators whom they have appointed, in a more restricted light than it is apprehended the Constitution implies. It seems to have been supposed that the senators were bound to obey the directions of the state legislatures, and the language of some resolutions has been, that the senators be "instructed," and the members of the house of representatives from the particular states "requested," to make or support certain propositions. But surely the opinion is erroneous. A senator is no more bound to obey the instructions of the state legislature, in opposition to his own judgment, than a representative of the people in the other house, is bound by the occasional instructions of his constituents. They are both elected for the purpose of freely and honestly exercising their own judgments according to the best of their capacities.

Inserting the FCC into our states' economic and fiscal affairs sets a dangerous precedent and violates state sovereignty in a manner that warrants deeper examination.