Under All The Usual Rules Of Interpretation,

Many Think It Not Only Inevitable But Entirely Proper That Liberty Give Way To Security In Times Of National Crisis--that, At The Extremes Of Military Exigency, Inter Arma Silent Leges. Whatever The General Merits Of The View That War Silences Law Or Modulates Its Voice, That View Has No Place In The Interpretation And Application Of A Constitution Designed Precisely To Confront War And, In A Manner That Accords With Democratic Principles, To Accommodate It.

If, Even As The Price To Be Paid For A Fifth Vote, I Ever Joined An Opinion For The Court That Began: 'the Constitution Promises Liberty To All Within Its Reach, A Liberty That Includes Certain Specific Rights That Allow Persons, Within A Lawful Realm, To Define And Express Their Identity,' I Would Hide My Head In A Bag. The Supreme Court Of The United States Has Descended From The Disciplined Legal Reasoning Of John Marshall And Joseph Story To The Mystical Aphorisms Of The Fortune Cookie.

On This Day, When We're Celebrating Our Constitutional Heritage, I Urge You To Be Faithful To That Heritage - To Impose On Our Fellow Citizens Only The Restrictions That Are There In The Constitution, Not Invent New Ones, Not To Invent The Right Because It's A Good Idea.

It Would Be Gross Understatement To Say That The Telecommunications Act Of 1996 Is Not A Model Of Clarity. It Is In Many Important Respects A Model Of Ambiguity Or Indeed Even Self-contradiction.

The Right Of Parents To Direct The Upbringing Of Their Children Is Among The Unalienable Rights With Which The Declaration Of Independence Proclaims 'all Men Are Endowed By Their Creator.'