
On 24 January 1994, shortly after the National Assembly was convened, which was responsible for the drafting a new constitution, as quoted by Hassen Ebrahim, The Soul of a Nation: Constitution-making in South Africa, p. 239 (1998)
17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 316, 421. Regarding the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Context: We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.
On 24 January 1994, shortly after the National Assembly was convened, which was responsible for the drafting a new constitution, as quoted by Hassen Ebrahim, The Soul of a Nation: Constitution-making in South Africa, p. 239 (1998)
" Whodunit? Who Meddled With Out Democracy? https://www.unz.com/imercer/whodunit-who-meddled-with-our-democracy/" February 8, 2018, The Unz Review.
2010s, 2018
The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self, 1984
Letter to Henry Lee http://books.google.com/books?id=B0waAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA191&dq=%22In+that+sense+alone+it+is+the+legitimate+Constitution%22 (25 June 1824)
1820s
Source: Dr.Janak Raj Jai Presidents of India, 1950-2003 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=r2C2InxI0xAC&pg=PA126, Daya Books, 1 January 2003, P.133
From his speech given on 28 November 1960 at laying the foundation-stone of the building of the Law Institute of India, in: p. 14
Presidents of India, 1950-2003
17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 316, 424
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Context: [.. ] it can scarcely be necessary to say that the existence of State banks can have no possible influence on the question. No trace is to be found in the Constitution of an intention to create a dependence of the Government of the Union on those of the States, for the execution of the great powers assigned to it. Its means are adequate to its ends, and on those means alone was it expected to rely for the accomplishment of its ends. To impose on it the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another Government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other Governments which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the Constitution. But were it otherwise, the choice of means implies a right to choose a national bank in preference to State banks, and Congress alone can make the election. After the most deliberate consideration, it is the unanimous and decided opinion of this Court that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is a part of the supreme law of the land.