I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.

For the life of me I don't understand what honest motive there is in putting this in front of this body to philosophically debate marriage on a constitutional amendment that is not going to happen and which is enormously divisive in all of our communities.

If one is going to change the definition of marriage to be quote 'same sex ' then there is absolutely no valid argument constitutionally or rhetorically you can make against multiple people getting married. These are radical social changes.

Our national media refuses to report that even the Supreme Court did not say marriage was a human right in all cases nor did it say that the heterosexual definition violated anyone's right or that the heterosexual definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

While 45 of the 50 States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute that preserves the current definition of marriage left-wing activist judges and officials at the local levels have struck down State laws protecting marriage.

Even those who like me believe that Roe v. Wade and the decisions elaborating on reproductive rights were constitutionally correct must recognize that for many on the right the sudden and relatively sloppily reasoned character of the abortion rulings... did real damage to the Court's reputation as a relatively neutral arbiter of legal disputes.

I think we Americans of all people understand the importance of a good legal constitutional framework as the basis of political life.

I wish the government and the Minister of Justice would address these legal and constitutional arguments but they refuse to. They want Canadians to go blindly into their brave new world but it is not wise for a society to move blindly in any direction.

Why don't they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as well as prohibition did in five years Americans would be the smartest race of people on Earth.

Our democracy our constitutional framework is really a kind of software for harnessing the creativity and political imagination for all of our people. The American democratic system was an early political version of Napster.

By the Obama administration's reasoning it would be constitutionally permissible to make Americans purchase nearly any product (broccoli gym membership) that improved their health and thereby contributed to lower health-care costs.

We are losing our living systems social systems cultural systems governing systems stability and our constitutional health and we're surrendering it all at the same time.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to require individuals to engage in an activity they have chosen to avoid. Yet that is precisely what Obamacare does: It forces Americans without health insurance to purchase coverage. Such a requirement is unprecedented and unconstitutional.

If Charlton Heston can have a constitutional right carry a rifle why can't grandma have a constitutional right to health care?

Got good news and bad news for you Mr. President. The good news is that Chief Justice John Roberts just saved your legacy and perhaps your presidency by writing for the Supreme Court majority to rule health care reform constitutional.

The great constitutional corrective in the hands of the people against usurpation of power or corruption by their agents is the right of suffrage and this when used with calmness and deliberation will prove strong enough.

I think people are confused about what the Tea Party is. I mean they were a broad cross-section of Americans who came together concerned about our debt and our spending. And they're interested in constitutional limited government. And so they're not one group of people. They're thousands of small groups all over the country.