Constitutional arguments that seem as dry as dust can have momentous consequences.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.
The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.
A law can be both economic folly and constitutional.
Dusting is a good example of the futility of trying to put things right. As soon as you dust, the fact of your next dusting has already been established.
Let this circumstance of our constitution therefore be directed to this noble purpose, and then all the objections urged against it by jealous tyranny and affrighted superstition will vanish.
Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
A cloudy day or a little sunshine have as great an influence on many constitutions as the most recent blessings or misfortunes.
And what I would say now is, yes, if a state enacted a law permitting flogging, it is immensely stupid, but it is not unconstitutional. A lot of stuff that's stupid is not unconstitutional.
The troubles of our proud and angry dust are from eternity, and shall not fail. Bear them we can, and if we can we must. Shoulder the sky, my lad, and drink your ale.
Arguments are healthy. They clear the air.