I do not believe any president can bind a successor president to give up his fundamental role as protector of the country.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think that presidents don't give up power that has accrued to them by the precedent of previous presidents. Even when they say they would like to, I think once they get there they don't give it up.
A president cannot sit on his hands and be seen as passive in the face of ruthless action by a foreign dictator.
We don't want a president who fails at domestic and foreign policy.
I don't think that a Justice should have uppermost in her mind, 'A Democratic president appointed me, so I must leave to be sure that another Democratic president can appoint my successor.'
It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
No person who denies the existence of a supreme being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
A President cannot always be popular.
It is only requisite, for me to say to you, that the President places great reliance upon your skill, judgment and intimate knowledge.
No man will ever carry out of the Presidency the reputation which carried him into it.
There is no doubt a president has to govern for everyone.