Quote

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.

The concept of neutrality can lead to a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it.

No constitution is or can be perfectly symmetrical, what it can and must be is generally accepted as both fair and usable.

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.

Power's not what the Constitution was about.

The Constitution remains brilliant in its overall design and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation. These constitutional bits affect the daily life of the republic and every citizen in it.

I noticed that parts of the opposition have been hostile to any revision of the constitution.

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state. It was not written into the Constitution.