Justice Hugo L. Black Quote

“The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional.”

~ Justice Hugo L. Black

New York Times, 26 February 1971.

Ratings and Comments

Elaine Black, Homestead, FL

This great justice had a deep understanding of both law and men.

  • Reply
    Anonymous    3/12/09

    Sad, but true.

    Mike, Norwalk

    Five stars for accuracy and thumbs down for the dummied down populace

    J Carlton, Calgary

    This would be because the Constitution lends itself to natural law much more so that it does to ridiculous laws of control and compliance. Only an immoral government needs to "control" citizens. Audit the Fed, Go Liberty.

    Anonymous, Reston, VA, US

    Expresses the views put forth by the Grand Olde Partypoopers very well... at least there are some organizations (such as the ACLU) which understand that sentiments such as these are ill directed...

    Waffler, Smith

    True but yes sad. Few have read the thing. Those who want arms for instance to take on the government should read the part that says that they are part of the unorganized militia and the President is their Commander In Chief. Most people assume the Constitution must say what ever their hearts desire is. It was a document carefully crafted in an atmosphere of compromise. No one ever gets their own way in such an atmosphere, sort of like democracy. Live with it!

    • Reply
    Anon    5/8/09

    I wasn't aware I was a member of an unorganized militia and the President was my commander in chief. I never game him my consent to enrol me if he did. I didn't give my consent to anyone to put me in that position and our founding fathers didn't do anything to put me in that position either. Your post is misleading again. Show me where our constitutional self government administrators are given the power to force me against my will by denying my freedom of choice to do anything. Show me that constitutional mandate that might make me cannon fodder. I know the Constitution pretty well and I've never read that. Show me.

    Mike, Norwalk

    Waffler, just a short note to help. Democracies speak in terms of majorities and minorities, our republic spoke in terms of individuals. If the rights of the individual are protected, it doesn't matter who's in power, the majority or minority. The militias were considered a common law right so that any male over 18 years of age could gather together for protection. The term regulation in the Second Amendment, concerning militias was a military term meaning armament. The individual had the right to be armed and upon joining a militia needed to be well regulated. There is no federal common law so the very premise of your assertion is incorrect.

    E Archer, NYC

    Waffler has just proved this quote. (I knew he would.)

    Waffler, Smith

    Anon, the Constitutional role of the President as Commander in Chief was explained and codified by the Militia Act of 1903. All men between the ages of 17 and 45 are part of the militia. They may be in the National Guard in which case they are organized. If they are not in the National Guard then they are ipso facto part of the unorganized militia. Thus all male citizens between those ages are militia guardians of our great nation under the leadership of The Commander in Chief. I think it is great apparently you may seem to think otherwise.

    Mike, Norwalk

    Waffler, your half-truths, mis-direction, redefinitions, unconstitutional interpretations, historical inaccuracies, erring on the side of socialist theocracy, unintentional oppses, and out right lies qualify you for a goose stepping Obamunist slave. Start with the Militia Act of 1795 and see that militias were dealt with as State sovereign entities. Move just a century forward to the Spanish American war (1898) when the Federal Government called for all militias to help in the conflict. New Hampshire refused calling upon its militias, so consequently, no New Hampshire militia ever left the State. The Militia Act of 1903 was mis-named (as are most Federal Acts - the Patriot Act for another example) The Militia Act of 1903 created a brand new branch of military, the National Guard, which had/has nothing to do with State militias.

    Waffler, Smith

    We are one nation, one people, one militia, and one Commander In Chief, one Supreme Court, one Constitution, Union forever. I was talking to Anon, Mike why don't you get a life.

    Mike, Norwalk

    (-; OK Waffler, I maybe oopsed, I should not have jumped in the middle of your public conversation (not), I know how you individuals like to get along, and how truth, facts, and real history mess you up. I'll try and cut my public meddling down to a maximum.;-)

    • Reply
      Anon    5/11/09

      Waffler, Do you have the right to make me DO anything? Do I have the right to make you DO anything? Only if I give you the authority and the same goes for you. That's called consent. It is a natural law, and is thereby protected by our Constitution that contains the means of rendering punishment for breaking that law and others of the natural type. Now hear this clearly waff, at the same time our founders protected that law for us as individuals liable to punishment for breaking it, they did the same for the punishment of government actions doing what I can't do to you and you can't do to me. They don't, as you don't, have the power to make cannon fodder out of me. If I have no choice when it comes to that MOST, and I can't stress MOST enough, important matter regarding my right to life and all other rights that entails then I will defend and fight to my death for that right because what have I got to lose then ? I repeat, NO WHERE is ANY President given ANY constitutional authority to make cannon fodder out of me like you seem to think he has with you. I asked you to show me where that constituional authority is in the CONSTITUTION above the limits granted in that document and you lay the militia laws on me? There was no militia before my rights existed and because men make up laws to fight for their wars I certainly retain the right to say no, not without my consent. At the same time I gladly, willingly and with my consent join others in the fight to save my and our rights to life and all that entails with every means necessary in defending our Constitution and the laws of nature, which are key and essential to my survival, my family's and the families of those which I fight beside. You waff are a parasite on the lives of others and I'm not so sorry to say, because you REFUSE to see the truth, that nature will take you out in some form or fashion by your own ignorance of its authority. That's not a threat, that's not a warning, it is the honest simple truth of nature. Parasites who live off of other's works always demand more and more though human parasites don't demand in the beginning, they start social programs and make them sound philanthropic and when they don't work as they are known not to, the parasite demands more to make a failed system work. Exactly like our bailout attempt. Demanding more than the host can give is the fate of parasites for they have no control by that time over their wants and desires (read greed) so they think they have to stick with it (as lemmings do) and before they know it, over the cliff they've gone. Show me that constitutional authority that makes cannon fodder out of me waff, show me.

      warren, olathe

      Unfortunately the layman’s view of the constitution and several of our Supreme Court Justices' view are one and the same.

      Waffler, Smith

      Anon I did not read your entire post above, I stopped at the "do we have the right to make each other anything". I immediately thought of Stop Signs, Red Lights and things like that. What do you think about being made to do those things? Depending on your answer I might give the rest of your post some attention.


      Get a Quote-a-Day!

      Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.