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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It is becoming more widely acknowledged that it is better to have a good constitution than not having a perfect one.
For myself, therefore, I desire to declare that the principle that will govern me in the high duty to which my country calls me is a strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the Constitution as it was designed by those who framed it.
The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.
But I deny that the Constitution recognizes property in man.
No constitution is or can be perfectly symmetrical, what it can and must be is generally accepted as both fair and usable.
Our Constitution recognises no other power than that of persuasion, for enforcing religious observances.
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.
As to the Constitution and the Union, I have taken an oath to support the one, and I cannot do so without preserving the other, unless I commit perjury, which I certainly don't intend to do. We must cherish the Constitution to the last.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
As a member of this court I am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution, no matter how deeply I may cherish them or how mischievous I may deem their disregard.
No opposing quotes found.