Words Have Meaning. And Their

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.

A Bill Of Rights That Means What The Majority Wants It To Mean Is Worthless.

The Court's Decision Reflects The Philosophy That Judges Should Endure Whatever Interpretive Distortions It Takes In Order To Correct A Supposed Flaw In The Statutory Machinery. That Philosophy Ignores The American People's Decision To Give Congress '[a]ll Legislative Powers' Enumerated In The Constitution. They Made Congress, Not This Court, Responsible For Both Making Laws And Mending Them.

This Is An Execution, Not Surgery. Where Does That Come From, That You Must Find The Method Of Execution That Causes The Least Pain?

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.