Dan Bongino Quotes

For those of us on the front lines fighting Washington's power grabs, Judge Gorsuch's commitment to interpreting the Constitution and the laws as they are actually written is welcome news.

I think the federal government should be doing only what the Constitution says it should be. We don't have authority under the federal Constitution to have a big federal criminal justice system.

Judicial review has been a part of our democracy in this constitutional government for over 200 years.

The Constitution was framed fundamentally as a bulwark against governmental power.

The Constitution is ... power. That is why we see political struggle over the selection of judges who will wield that power.

The whole point of the Constitution is to limit at some point and in some way popular will.

The appelate jurisdiction of the Supreme Federal Court, includes an unwarrantable stretch of power over the liberty, life, and property of the subject, through the wide Continent of America.

One single object... will merit the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

Search the Constitution and you will find no power granted to the legislative branch to make laws governing agriculture, housing, medicine, energy, private ownership or weapons, and a great deal more.

The Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact.

Wringing your hands about states' rights, forget it. They're gone. Basically, the federal government can do whatever it wants. Who's going to protect the states? My court? Ha - we're feds!

My battles have been against federal actions that exceed the powers our Founders granted to the federal government in the constitution.

It is not questioned that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. Its powers are such, and such only, as are expressly granted in the Constitution or are properly incident to the expressly granted powers and necessary to their execution.

A Supreme Court justice must convince at least four colleagues to bind the federal government nationwide, whereas a district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction needn't convince anyone.

I am an originalist, to begin with. So, I am a constitutional conservative. I believe that the Constitution enshrines some universal ideals that make our country strong and that are consistent with truth, and so that's the basic thing.

This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.

[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.

A Supreme Court decision does not establish a "supreme law of the land" that is binding on all persons and parts of government, henceforth and forevermore.

Under our constitutional system, the executive executes the laws that Congress has passed. It should not be executing laws that Congress has rejected.

We may have lured judges into roaming at large in the constitutional field.

The Tea Party movement as I perceive it is all about recognizing the difference between state and federal powers. And that there are limits to federal power that need to be respected.

This Republic was called into being, organized, and is upheld, by a great political doctrine.

The American Constitution is the greatest governing document, and at some 7,000 words, just about the shortest.

The growth of constitutional government, as we now understand it, was promoted by the establishment of two different sets of machinery for making laws and carrying on government.