“In considering the desirability of political parties, it should be borne in mind that to a very real extent political parties militate against the principle of separation of powers by undermining the system of checks and balances. They do this by weakening the motivation of government official’s to resist encroachment. Under the party system a government official’s ambition is best served by maintaining his standing with other members of his party. Hence, when persons influential in his party are involved in encroaching upon the authority of his department, his personal interest in remaining in their good graces is stronger than his personal interest in resisting their encroachment. In fact, if he resists them at all, it is likely to involve a sacrifice of his personal interests rather than a furtherance of them. In other words, unity in support of party is likely to supersede unity in support of the Constitution.

“In considering political parties in the context of separation of powers and checks and balances, due concern should be given the possibility that all branches of the government maybe controlled by a single party. The danger to our freedom system inherent in that possibility was indicated by James Madison in the following words: ‘The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.’” (Jerome Horowitz, The Elders of Israel and the Constitution, p. 41. 1970.)

“The political system of democracy, in the sense of unrestricted control by the will of the majority, militates against the fundamental requirement of a religious citizenry. This is because the underlying philosophy of democracy has deeply anti-religious overtones, since it implies that right or wrong can be determined by the will of the majority. On the other hand, the American constitutional system is based on recognition of God as the source of correct eternal principles of government, and as the source of unalienable rights.” (Jerome Horowitz, The Elders of Israel and the Constitution, p. 47. 1970.)

“One of the most insidious aspects of government paternalism is that it deprives people of the will to be free. By means of continued doses of government welfare, people are transformed from lovers of freedom, motivated by a spirit of independence, to seekers after security unsure of their ability to stand on their own feet with the help of God. They are willing to forget about freedom if the government will promise them security.

“[This] condition is little different in principle from a willingness to barter one’s own freedom in exchange for a promise of security from a master—in other words to sell oneself into slavery. Slaves have their lives and a considerable freedom of movement if they convince their masters they will do only what their masters wish. Any property they have would be subject to the control of their masters; but this is not of great importance to a slave because he is fed, clothed and housed by his master anyhow.” (Jerome Horowitz, The Elders of Israel and the Constitution, p. 87. 1970.)

“Is there some conclusion to be drawn from the difficulty socialists seem to have finding examples of successful socialism to counter the consistent pattern of socialist failures? Can it be that although most of the people who accept socialism feel that they are intelligent and enlightened, acceptance of socialism is really based on a kind of unreasoning emotional faith rather than an intelligent analysis of extensive factual evidence?” (Jerome Horowitz, The Elders of Israel and the Constitution, pp. 96-97. 1970.)

“A frequently mentioned objection to capitalism is the argument that free enterprise, without government intervention, does not adequately provide for the poor and underprivileged. But it should be remembered that the free enterprise system is the one system that provides the framework under which the poor can become rich, and that under it America has been the land of opportunity the poor of other lands have struggled to enter. Instead of having to build a wall to keep people in, the United States has the problem of multitudes anxious to sacrifice greatly to enter and establish their posterity in this land of freedom and opportunity.” (Jerome Horowitz, The Elders of Israel and the Constitution, p. 121. 1970.)

“The treaty power is discussed in The Federalist in Numbers 64 written by John Jay, and 75 written by Alexander Hamilton. It is there clearly indicated that the term ‘treaty’ is used in the Constitution to refer to a bargain or contract between two independent sovereign nations pertaining to subjects that are customarily and traditionally considered to be treaties.

“The concept that under the treaty power the President and two-thirds of the Senators present could surrender American independence was completely inconsistent with the limited extent of the authority the Framers felt should be given to the federal government. How out of harmony with constitutional principles such a concept is becomes even clearer when one considers two particular facts. One is that the colonists had only recently fought a bloody and terrible war to gain their independence. The other is their great suspicion and distrust of public officials. In fact, as is pointed out in Chapter 2 of this work, one of their principal objects in designing the Constitution was to protect the people from improper action of government officials. Guided by these thoughts they surely would not have empowered the President and two-thirds of the Senators present to bargain away American independence without the consent of the people.” (Jerome Horowitz, The Elders of Israel and the Constitution, pp. 134-135. 1970.)

“Of Course There Is A Conspiracy  There are many today who loudly proclaim that there is no conspiracy in this country seeking the destruction of the American constitutional system. It is a tribute to the power of propaganda over common sense that anyone would seriously believe that there is not a massive subversive conspiracy at work in this country. The typical method of socialist conquest, whether in the name of communism or some other name, is by infiltration and subversion. The United States is both the greatest potential obstacle to socialist conquest of the world, and the greatest prize to conquer. With these facts in mind, it is unthinkable that there would not be a tremendous conspiratorial effort put forth to immobilize and to conquer America.” (Jerome Horowitz, The Elders of Israel and the Constitution, p. 166. 1970.)

“It should be emphasized that laws appropriating or regulating the use of a person's property to achieve such moral objectives not only constitute an unconstitutional interference with his property rights, but such laws also violate his freedom of religion, and actually amount to the beginnings of an unconstitutional compulsory state religion.” (Jerome Horowitz, The Elders of Israel and the Constitution, pp. 178. 1970.)

“How inappropriate it is to apply a doctrine under which the Supreme Court has a duty to preserve the Constitution inviolate against unauthorized changes by others by perverting that doctrine into one under which the Supreme Court is authorized to do the very thing the doctrine requires it to prevent others from doing.” (Jerome Horowitz, speaking of the doctrine of Judicial Review having power to change the Constitution by interpretation and not through the amendment process. The Elders of Israel and the Constitution, p. 185. 1970.)

“…if America's freedom system is to be preserved, it will not be by government leaders but by an awakened people who are willing to sacrifice their personal ease to be informed, and who will insist that their leaders abide by the sound principles of the Constitution as drafted and intended by the Framers.” (Jerome Horowitz, The Elders of Israel and the Constitution, p. 187. 1970.)