I found that I was getting a warm reception for my message of freeing you from the income tax releasing you from Social Security ending the insane war on drugs restoring gun rights and reducing the federal government to just its constitutional functions.

The truth is that I'm constitutionally incapable of doing an ordinary job.

We would be false to our trust if we allowed the time it takes to give effect to constitutional rights to be used as the very reason for taking away those rights.

All respect for the office of the presidency aside I assumed that the obvious and unadulterated decline of freedom and constitutional sovereignty not to mention the efforts to curb the power of judicial review spoke for itself.

This post of President is a Constitutional post. It is the duty of everyone all citizens to see that they respect the post... the institution of President.

Besides the healthcare bill being unconstitutional and a great expansion of federal government I think if it does not respect people's individual religious views and makes groups or individuals do things that are contrary to their deeply held beliefs there is going to be a visceral negative reaction.

When a Cabinet Minister who is sacked for telling lies is re-appointed in the face of every constitutional convention only for the same man to be sacked again from the same Cabinet for the same offence by the same Prime Minister no wonder the public are cynical about politics.

Nothing is more important in the preservation of peace than to secure among the great mass of the people living under constitutional government a just conception of the rights which their nation has against others and of the duties their nation owes to others.

We are confident that the Supreme Court will soon see the direction that this country is headed and enshrine marriage as a constitutional right for all.

Marriage and the creation of families has been an integral part of our society since its creation it should not be defined without the kind of involvement by the people which a constitutional process would require.

The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society any status short of that is inferior unjust and unconstitutional.

There are more than 30 states who either by statute or constitutional amendment have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

I didn't know that President Bush would endorse a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

I'm knocking our pitiful pathetic lawmakers. And I thank God that President Bush has stated we need a Constitutional amendment that states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I do not support a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage.

I think you may see again a rise at the federal government level for a - a call for the federal constitutional amendment because people want to make sure that this definition of marriage remains secure because after all the family is the fundamental unit of government.

So far 44 States or 88 percent of the States have enacted laws providing that marriage shall consist of a union between a man and a woman. Only 75 percent of the States are required to approve a constitutional amendment.

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.