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.

The whole country needs to get to the bottom of what really happened with the Russian collusion allegations. But in the meantime, we have a president Donald Trump who himself says trust me. He does not accept the boundaries of law. He basically says that if anybody gets too close for comfort, I'm going to get rid of them. And as long as that's in place, we cannot afford as a country to put our fate in the hands of someone so whimsical and so unpredictable.

The federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification.

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.

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.

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.

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?