Explore Quotes on Government

Every governor knows better how to manage and provide for quality health care in their respective states than does one-size-fits-all at the federal government level.

Don't like flag-burning? Fine. Hate flag-burning? Me too! The thing is, though, hating something doesn't always mean that the answer is to call on government powers to ban it - and, in fact, I'd say that that is rarely the best solution, especially when it comes to speech.

See, one of the greatest things about living in the United States is that we have the absolute freedom to say whatever we want about our government, while being protected against government retaliation.

The bottom line is: If any government has a rule that would legally allow it to punish people for things that don't deserve punishment, then that law should be scrapped or changed.

The greatest risk in giving our government any power to control our speech is that it would then have a vehicle to prohibit speech that was critical of it.

It's true: Whenever I see a government rule that could clearly be used to punish people for doing innocuous things, it is never enough for some government official to just assure me that it won't be used that way. Those assurances, after all, aren't binding; they're lip service.

The federal government gets a lot press, and that's what the media talks about, but your state and local governments, in many ways, have more impact on your life than the federal government does.

By mandating equal pay, the government erases the competitive advantage of those people who are willing to take less pay. In addition, employers are less willing to hire employees who they believe could subject them to increased liability.

Just as judges have enormous stake in the appointment of judicial officers in the higher judiciary, the government has an equal stake. Since both of us have stakes in the appointment of members of the higher judiciary, the consultation of both of them is absolutely necessary. The government must have a say.

If you have decisions taken from time to time at the level of the executives, which gives the impression of being discriminatory, if you are not open when government is functioning, then obviously people will make allegations.

How do you trust a government whose people are proved to be untrustworthy?

It would be a matter of concern for government if intrusive data capture has been deployed against Indian citizens or government infrastructure.

People are very sophisticated in their concerns about various parties, in their hopes for what the next government could look like. And I'm not going to prejudge any possible outcomes.

I know that a prime minister of Canada needs to be deeply respectful of the other levels of government - whether it be municipal, provincial, or even nation-to-nation relationships with aboriginal governments.

Nadine Gordimer came over just before she died. She didn't want to talk about books or the arts, but about the abuse of the constitution by the government.

I have nothing against wealth; I believe that government has a role to play in creating it by supporting pro-growth policies. However, success comes with responsibility.

The federal government shouldn't be drawing lines on a map in terms of what transit infrastructure are needed; we should be there to be a partner with the cities, with the provinces, that need that.

Income splitting is a cynical policy, designed by a tired government short on ideas, now reheating old concoctions as their next campaign policy menu.

The back and forth between the press and government is essential to any good democracy.

You can't run a government from one single person. What instead matters is that leadership be about gathering around extraordinary individuals and getting the best out of them.

The Government and the police are only able to do their jobs with the consent of the people.