What Is A Moderate Interpretation Of The

If We Cannot Have Moral Feelings Against Homosexuality, Can We Have It Against Murder? Can We Have It Against Other Things?

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.

You Can't Come In Smugly And With Great Self Satisfaction And Say 'oh It's Torture, And Therefore It's No Good.' Is It Really So Easy To Determine That Smacking Someone In The Face To Determine Where He Has Hidden The Bomb That Is About To Blow Up Los Angeles Is Prohibited In The Constitution? It Would Be Absurd To Say You Couldn't Do That. And Once You Acknowledge That, We're Into A Different Game.

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.

This Is So Absurd That It Has, To My Knowledge, Never Been Contemplated.