One of the most extraordinary examples in recent decades [of unitary visions of constitutional enterprise] is found in a book called "Takings"... Epstein makes an extremely clever but stunningly reductionist argument that the whole Constitution is really designed to protect private property... Can a constitution reflecting as diverse an array of visions and aspirations as ours really be reducible to such as sadly single-minded vision as that?

Of course the president Donald Trump said he wants to get to the truth. He always says that. But I think we all know that those words do not speak as loudly as his actions.

Trust is not what the framers of the United States constitution and of this country relied on.

There are a lot of things that fit on a bumper sticker in terms of either liberty or equality or progress that when made more concrete just don't pan out.

The Second Amendment does protect the right to people to possess weapons for self-defense in the home. That's what the Supreme Court said.

The only way the avoid a constitution crisis, and I'm not saying we're there yet, is to reassure the public that the person leading the government is someone who has loyalties other than to himself, not loyalties to the foreign governments that helped him financially.

An excess of law inescapably weakens the rule of law.