“Sitting here, we are not at liberty to add one jot of power to the national government beyond what the people have granted by the constitution; and, on the other hand, we are bound to support that constitution as it stands, and to give a fair and rational scope to all the powers which it clearly contains.”

Phrased somewhat using an illegitimate format while being a bit to vague to be of real use. "Rational scope" leaves too broad an interpretation to contain the powers granted by "We The People" (individually and in concert). It was clear that if the Constitution didn't specifically state the domain of action - no power or authority was attached or precluded to action. Though, on a whole, fairly accurate.

So explain to me how a federal judge may cancel a lawful executive order for political reasons only? The lawyers' guild has been gradually taking over the legal system of the US, putting judges, not juries, as regulators of government. This is a socialist/fascist mechanism to subvert the republican form of government.