No constitution is or can be perfectly symmetrical, what it can and must be is generally accepted as both fair and usable.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
It is becoming more widely acknowledged that it is better to have a good constitution than not having a perfect one.
Just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
A constitution is the arrangement of magistracies in a state.
I submit, on the other hand, most respectfully, that the Constitution not merely does not affirm that principle, but, on the contrary, altogether excludes it.
The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.
The Constitution is no simple contract, not because it uses a certain amount of open-ended language, but because its language grants and guarantees many good things, and good things that compete with each other and can never all be realized, altogether, all at once.
I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.
A Constitution should be short and obscure.
Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.