Nothing that we have authorized conflicts with any law regarding privacy or any provision of the constitution.

All of us want to have meaning in our lives and want to feel like we're doing something that makes a difference. I believe we're doing that in the Justice Department.

I don't play full court anymore. I just play half-court.

It's a different world.

Agents need to be free to pursue investigations in ways that they haven't. There have been restraints that a reformed FBI needs to make sure we don't impose.

Prior to September 11, we thought the world beyond our shores was one world of risk and the world in our continent was another world of risk.

Nothing remains great without a capacity to change and to accommodate the conditions of a changing world.

Reasonable regulations regarding the ownership of weapons are appropriate.

The new rule says that the FBI has the right to go to public places on the same terms and conditions as other members of the public for counter-terrorism purposes.

We have to think outside the box, inside the Constitution, find ways to do things that will elevate our security, reduce the risk of the incidence of terrorist attack.

People who commit crimes should be responsible for those crimes. It doesn't matter whether they're priests or ministers or atheists.

The liberties and freedoms which we hold dear and we recognize and cherish and respect guide the way we gather information in the United States.

What we learned on September 11 is that the unthinkable is now thinkable in the world.

The Patriot Act allows and provides a basis for an exchange of information.

An FBI agent ought to be able to surf the net and look for sites that instruct people how to make bombs.

The path we have chosen is constitutional.

Nothing that we have authorized conflicts with any law regarding privacy or any provision of the constitution.

There is no priority higher than the prevention of terrorism.

The FBI has long been a part of the security for the nation's banks because bank robberies have been a priority.

The Internet provides very serious challenges to our ability to keep from children the kinds of things that are destructive to them.

The way the terrorist is trained to operate, especially the suicide terrorists, makes punishment and the threat of punishment far less valuable to those who would prevent the crime.

We need to strengthen our analytic capacity in Washington, we need to centralize the anti-terrorism effort.

We've got to understand that the whole nature of the way American democracy guards its freedom has been changed.

If necessity is the mother of invention, it's the father of cooperation. And we're cooperating like never before.

The worst mistake a boss can make is not to say 'well done'.

The FBI. is a massive culture. It's been a culture that served America well, and it's been focused on prosecution. But what we need in terms of terrorism is prevention.

It doesn't help to wait until something happens and then prosecute the offenders, especially if it's the idea of the offender to extinguish himself in the commission of the crime.

We've got a major problem in our culture, as it relates to the Internet and pornography and child pornography.

The worst mistake a boss can make is not to say well done.

As a member of this court I am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution, no matter how deeply I may cherish them or how mischievous I may deem their disregard.

The relationship between press and politician - protected by the Constitution and designed to be happily adversarial - becomes sour, raw and confrontational.

I didn't say 'former president,' I said 'president,' and I have the constitutional rights according to the constitution, including immunity from prosecution.

All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.

The constitution is the ultimate custodian of social will and its making should be accorded all due diligence.

I believe in the Constitution. The Constitution says that government isn't supposed to be infusing religion into our society, and so I asked to have that upheld.

It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution this idea of the separation of church and state.

I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

This constitution recognises the need for social dialogue involving labour and management; it involves trade unions in the decision-making process; it has a social vision founded on social dialogue.

They will sustain the constitution and laws and institutions of the United States, and be the champions of liberty and of that constitution when its integrity shall be threatened.

But I think the possibility of a black and white society feeding each other's expertises, living harmoniously, will probably go along in fits and starts now but at least it has a great constitution now to back it up.

I deem it established, then, that the Constitution does not recognize property in man, but leaves that question, as between the states, to the law of nature and of nations.

I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act but I do not believe we should institutionalize a form of discrimination against any minority by amending the Constitution.

The Constitution is never tested during times of tranquility; it is during times of tension, turmoil, tragedy, trauma, and terrorism that it is sorely tested.

Working Americans who believe in our country and who believe in our Constitution are saying, 'Enough is enough!'

If the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

They had no right, as it seems to me, to prosecute me in these Halls; nor have you the right in law or under the Constitution, as I respectfully submit, to take jurisdiction over offenses committed against them.

The whole basis of the Constitution was a restriction of power, and the whole basis of the federalist system was that there was not one sovereign centralized power from which all authority flows.

The Constitution was written by 55 educated and highly intelligent men in Philadelphia in 1787, but it was written so that it could be understood by people of limited education and modest intelligence.

We know that this man has a proven record of being a 'strict constructionist.' Our President has given us his word that he will interpret the Constitution rather than make new laws from the bench.