"If a bill violates the constitutional rights of even one person, then it has to be struck down," he said in 1992.

Opponents say the bill violates constitutional guarantees of free speech and weakens political parties.

They also argued that the bill, if passed, would violate rights of individuals and localities.

But the city successfully sued, arguing that the bill violated its home-rule authority.

The Massachusetts court held that the bill clearly violated the principles spelled out in the 1943 case.

Legal scholars say the bill may violate three or more amendments to the Constitution.

Later the constitutional court found that the bill indeed had violated the constitution, including the "core" article of the constitution.

Civil liberties groups argue that the bill would violate the constitutional right to confront one's accusers.

He declared that such bills violated the principle that the federal government should not be involved in local economic affairs.

The plain truth was that his bill violated the spirit of the Confederate Constitution and very likely its letter as well.