The "establishment Of Religion" Clause Of The

The Public Welfare Demands That Constitutional Cases Must Be Decided According To The Terms Of The Constitution Itself, And Not According To Judges Views Of Fairness, Reasonableness, Or Justice. I Have No Fear Of Constitutional Amendments Properly Adopted, But I Do Fear The Rewriting Of The Constitution By Judges Under The Guise Of Interpretation.

In My Judgment The People Of No Nation Can Lose Their Liberty So Long As A Bill Of Rights Like Ours Survives And Its Basic Purposes Are Conscientiously Interpreted, Enforced And Respected So As To Afford Continuous Protection Against Old, As Well As New, Devices And Practices Which Might Thwart Those Purposes. I Fear To See The Consequences Of The Court's Practice Of Substituting Its Own Concepts Of Decency And Fundamental Justice For The Language Of The Bill Of Rights As Its Point Of Departure In Interpreting And Enforcing That Bill Of Rights.

The Government's Power To Censor The Press Was Abolished So That The Press Would Remain Forever Free To Censure The Government. The Press Was Protected So That It Could Bare The Secrets Of Government And Inform The People. Only A Free And Unrestrained Press Can Effectively Expose Deception In Government.

What Finally Emerges From The 'clear And Present Danger' Cases Is A Working Principle That The Substantive Evil Must Be Extremely Serious And The Degree Of Imminence Extremely High Before Utterances Can Be Punished...it Must Be Taken As A Command Of The Broadest Scope That Explicit Language, Read In The Context Of A Liberty-loving Society, Will Allow.

The First Amendment's Language Leaves No Room For Inference That Abridgments Of Speech And Press Can Be Made Just Because They Are Slight. That Amendment Provides, In Simple Words, That "congress Shall Make No Law . . . Abridging The Freedom Of Speech, Or Of The Press." I Read "no Law . . . Abridging" To Mean No Law Abridging.