Supreme Court Examples

 

The United States Supreme Court has on several occasions discussed its and other courts’ role as to interpreting the Constitution and its provisions. Some quotes from these court cases are listed below. There is no question Judge Coughenour ignored them all.

 

“Where there are several possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that meaning which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose cannot rightly be preferred.” U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941).

 

“Where provision in United States Constitution is unambiguous and its meaning is entirely free from doubt, the intention of the framers of the constitution cannot be inquired into, and the supreme court is bound to give the provision full operation, whatever might be the views entertained of its expediency.” Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827).

 

“In expounding the Constitution, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning.” Wright v. U.S., 302 U.S. 583 (1938).

 

“[The] Court may not construe Constitution so as to defeat its obvious ends when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense thereof, will enforce and protect them.” Prigg v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842).

 

“A constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.” Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580 (1880).

 

“Nothing new can be put into the constitution except through the amendatory process, and nothing old can be taken out without the same process.” Ullmann v. U.S., 350 U.S. 422 (1956).

 

“Where the text of the constitution is clear and distinct, no restriction on its plain and obvious import should be admitted unless the inference is irresistible.” Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816).

 

“Courts cannot add any new provisions to the constitution by construction.” In re Tonnage Tax Cases, 79 U.S. 204 (1870).

 

“Words of [the] Constitution are to be taken in natural and obvious sense, and not in sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.” Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816).

 

“Where intention of words and phrases used in Constitution is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation.” U.S. v Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931).

 

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

 

“As no constitutional guarantee enjoys preference, so none should suffer subordination or deletion.” Ullmann v. U.S., 350 U.S. 422 (1956).

 

“The numbers of the Federalist are entitled to weight in any discussion as to the true intent and meaning of the provisions of the fundamental law of the United States.” Wheeling P.& C. Transportation Co. v. City of Wheeling, 99 U.S. 273 (1878).

 

“The government of the United States can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution.” Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816).