Why Can't The State Accede To The

There Is Nothing New In The Realization That The Constitution Sometimes Insulates The Criminality Of A Few In Order To Protect The Privacy Of Us All.

A Law Can Be Both Economic Folly And Constitutional.

That's The Argument Of Flexibility And It Goes Something Like This: The Constitution Is Over 200 Years Old And Societies Change. It Has To Change With Society, Like A Living Organism, Or It Will Become Brittle And Break. But You Would Have To Be An Idiot To Believe That. The Constitution Is Not A Living Organism; It Is A Legal Document. It Says Something And Doesn't Say Other Things.

With Respect To Public Acknowledgment Of Religious Belief, It Is Entirely Clear From Our Nation's Historical Practices That The Establishment Clause Permits This Disregard Of Polytheists And Believers In Unconcerned Deities, Just As It Permits The Disregard Of Devout Atheists.

Justice White's Conclusion Is Perhaps Correct, If One Assumes That The Task Of A Court Of Law Is To Plumb The Intent Of The Particular Congress That Enacted A Particular Provision. That Methodology Is Not Mine Nor, I Think, The One That Courts Have Traditionally Followed. It Is Our Task, As I See It, Not To Enter The Minds Of The Members Of Congress - Who Need Have Nothing In Mind In Order For Their Votes To Be Both Lawful And Effective - But Rather To Give Fair And Reasonable Meaning To The Text Of The United States Code, Adopted By Various Congresses At Various Times.