Rush Limbaugh Quotes

I think that he was responsible for putting the flesh and bones on the Constitution.

It would be a novel and dangerous doctrine that a legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence.

The [Supreme] Court did not interpret the Constitution—the court amended it.

It's got to be both houses and the people coming together in unanimous decision when you start messing with the Constitution.

The Constitution is a total living document that can change quite a bit.

Are we going to change the Constitution? I hope never. We would have to amend it. Let's uphold the Second Amendment.

We have to have a good look at the Constitution. Let's determine where the shortcomings are. Then we can start talking of clauses.

The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.

Over the course of 19 years on the Supreme Court, I learned some lessons about the Constitution of the United States.

The notion that Congress can change the meaning given a constitutional provision by the Court is subversive of the function of judicial review; and it is not the less so because the Court promises to allow it only when the Constitution is moved to the left.

It is time... to end the long-standing and unproductive methodological debate over 'originalism' versus 'dynamism' or 'evolution' and focus instead on how, as a substantive matter, we should interpret the Constitution in the twenty-first century, and what it has to say on questions unimaginable to our eighteenth-century Framers.

Day by day, case by case, the Supreme Court is designing a constitution for a country that I do not recognize.

A new world has come into being since the Constitution was adopted. Are the narrow, limited necessities of the old thirteen states ... to remain the rule of interpretations?

People seem to be concerned about the Constitution of the United States only when it pertains to something that is of concern to them.

I get nervous every time we start tinkering with the Constitution.

What I reject, out of hand, is the idea that by 5 to 4 Supreme Court judges can rewrite the Constitution, but it takes two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate and three-fourths of the States to equal 5 judges.

I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.

Is there a man who will say that the Constitution wants no reform? Will any man be found to say that the Constitution is perfect?

What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional?

The Founding Fathers provided a way to reverse unpopular Supreme Court decisions: a constitutional amendment.

Ours is the job of interpreting the Constitution. And that document isn't some inkblot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams.

Anybody who questions the validity of the Constitution, whether it works in the modern era, should never be president.

The Constitution is a document that should only be amended with great caution.

As a matter of traditional and sound constitutional doctrine, an amendment to the Constitution should be the last resort when all other measures have proved inadequate.

The U.S. constitution is an extraordinary document. In my view, it should not be amended often.