“Its fine if the law bans books because government won't really enforce it.”

—  Elena Kagan

Widely reported as having been said by Kagan during the Supreme Court oral argument in the Citizens United case in September, 2009; however, this quote does not appear in the actual transcript of the oral argument http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205[Reargued].pdf.
Misattributed

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "Its fine if the law bans books because government won't really enforce it." by Elena Kagan?
Elena Kagan photo
Elena Kagan 6
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States 1960

Related quotes

“Revolutions are usually a matter of people picking up the power of a state in disintegration, a government that has lost the will to enforce its laws.”

Brian Reynolds Myers (1963) American professor of international studies

Of the two states on the peninsula, I see the South as closer to fitting that bill. There were recent reports of demonstrators around the THAAD site stopping and checking police cars.
2010s, Interview with Joshua Stanton (August 2017)

G. K. Chesterton photo

“The thing that really is trying to tyrannize through government is Science. The thing that really does use the secular arm is Science. And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statutes, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen – that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics. Materialism is really our established Church; for the Government will really help it to persecute its heretics.”

G. K. Chesterton book Eugenics and other Evils

Source: Eugenics and Other Evils (1922), Ch. VII: "The Established Church of Doubt" (pp. 76-77). https://books.google.com/books?id=m2xaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA76&dq=%22the+thing+that+really+is+trying+to+tyrannise+through+government+is+science%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9uKmM_6jMAhUHgj4KHZr3DW0Q6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=%22the%20thing%20that%20really%20is%20trying%20to%20tyrannise%20through%20government%20is%20science%22&f=false Dale Ahlquist, president and co-founder of the American Chesterton Society, commenting of this passage writes: "Eugenics is also about the tyranny of science. Forget the tired old argument about religion persecuting science. Chesterton points out the obvious fact that in the modern world, it is the quite the other way around." http://www.chesterton.org/lecture-36/ Lecture 36: Eugenics and Other Evils

Taslima Nasrin photo

“Many of my books are banned in Bangladesh. My book was banned in West Bengal too. Its government not only banned my book, it forced me to leave the state too. The new government ban­ned the release of my book Nir­basan in 2012 and a few months ago forced a TV channel called Akash Ath to stop telecast of a mega serial I wrote. The serial was about women’s struggle and how three sisters living in Calcutta fight aga­inst patriarchal oppression to live their lives with dignity and honour. She (Mamata Banerjee) ban­ned me to app­ease some misogynist mullahs.”

Taslima Nasrin (1962) Poet, columnist, novelist

Taslima Nasrin, quoted in Outlook India, Outlook India https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/dwikhandita/289581

Robert H. Jackson photo

“Nothing better can come out of this meeting of law enforcement officers than a rededication to the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor. Your positions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.”

Robert H. Jackson (1892–1954) American judge

"The Federal Prosecutor" (1940)

Dana Rohrabacher photo

“The American people, through the 35 states that have liberalized laws banning either medical marijuana, marijuana in general, or cannabinoid oils, have made it clear that federal enforcers should stay out of their personal lives. It’s time for restraint of the federal government’s over-aggressive weed warriors.”

Dana Rohrabacher (1947) American politician

"O.C. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher trying again with bill protecting state marijuana laws", The Orange County Register http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rohrabacher-659189-laws-state.html (April 23, 2015)

Albert Einstein photo

“The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced”

Albert Einstein (1879–1955) German-born physicist and founder of the theory of relativity
Alberto Gonzales photo

“It is a myth that the Patriot Act empowers the government to be overly intrusive, giving it power that could someday be used to pry into innocent Americans’ personal lives. The fact is that the Patriot Act was born of a well-established criminal justice and national security structure as well as vibrant bi-partisan debate in Congress, both upon its establishment and its renewal. The Act was written to help the law enforcement and intelligence communities to protect Americans and fight the war on terror. It, in fact, answered the call of career, rank and file law enforcement to update our laws to match law-enforcement tools with modern technology. The Patriot Act simply ensures that law enforcement and national security personnel have the tools they need to keep us safe from terrorism — and in many cases those tools were already available to law enforcement in other contexts — while also ensuring that those tools are consistent with the Constitution and include appropriate safeguards against government over-reaching.”

Alberto Gonzales (1955) 80th United States Attorney General

Speech regarding Civil Liberties and the War on Terrorism (November 20, 2006)

Anthony Kennedy photo

“The argument, in essence, is that protected speech may be banned as a means to ban unprotected speech. This analysis turns the First Amendment upside down. The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter. The Constitution requires the reverse.”

Anthony Kennedy (1936) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (Opinion of the Court).

“Importantly, there is nothing in the Constitution — by which, under Article 6, Section 2, officials at every level of government are obligated to abide — that authorizes the banning of any substance or enforcing that ban with the threat of injury, incarceration, or death. The lawful powers of the federal government are enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, and they do not include forbidding drugs or any other substance. Politicians early in the 20th century understood this, and passed a Constitutional amendment allowing them to outlaw alcohol. No such amendment has ever been passed, or even proposed, with regard to drugs.”

L. Neil Smith (1946) American writer

"Some Random Thoughts About the War On Drugs".

Arun Shourie photo

“That is not just the shariah as enforced by the fatwas. As our governments have not acted upon the directive of the Constitution to enact a Uniform Civil Code, that is the law of secular India enforced by our courts!”

Arun Shourie (1941) Indian journalist and politician

The World of Fatwas (Or The Shariah In Action)

Related topics