[It] is a great mistake to suppose that [a written constitution] will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers. [T]hey will be in favor of the powers granted by the constitution, and opposed to the restrictions intended to limit them. [T]hey will have no need of these restrictions for their protection. The ballot-box ... would be ample protection for them. ... The minor, or weaker party, ... would endeavor to to defend and enlarge the restrictions. ... To this the major party would oppose a liberal construction – one which would give to the words of the grant the broadest possible meaning ... . The end ... would be the subversion of the constitution, either by the undermining process of construction [or] by openly and boldly setting [the constitutional provisions] aside. By the one or the other, the restrictions would ultimately be annulled, and the government converted into one of unlimited powers.
John C. Calhoun sametime between 1843 and 1849
Posted by: Walt Lessun | October 02, 2014 at 05:14 PM
Walt, That was quick. Yes, it's Calhoun, from his A Disquisition on Government, published in 1853 but surely this was brewing in his mind before then.
Posted by: Calvin Massey | October 02, 2014 at 07:40 PM
I was going to say, "Not Holmes," but the internet takes all the fun out of this stuff.
Posted by: Think Like a 1L | October 03, 2014 at 12:23 AM