Perhaps The Bleakest Fact Of

Our Amended Constitution Is The Lodestar For Our Aspirations. Like Every Text Worth Reading, It Is Not Crystalline. The Phrasing Is Broad And The Limitations Of Its Provisions Are Not Clearly Marked. Its Majestic Generalities And Ennobling Pronouncements Are Both Luminous And Obscure. This Ambiguity Of Course Calls Forth Interpretation, The Interaction Of Reader And Text. The Encounter With The Constitutional Text Has Been, In Many Senses, My Life's Work.

The Concept Of Military Necessity Is Seductively Broad, And Has A Dangerous Plasticity. Because They Invariably Have The Visage Of Overriding Importance, There Is Always A Temptation To Invoke Security "necessities" To Justify An Encroachment Upon Civil Liberties. For That Reason, The Military-security Argument Must Be Approached With A Healthy Skepticism.

While The Machinery Of Law Enforcement And Indeed The Nature Of Crime Itself Have Changed Dramatically Since The Fourth Amendment Became Part Of The Nation's Fundamental Law In 1791, What The Framers Understood Then Remains True Today - That The Task Of Combating Crime And Convicting The Guilty Will In Every Era Seem Of Such Critical And Pressing Concern That We May Be Lured By The Temptations Of Expediency Into Forsaking Our Commitment To Protecting Individual Liberty And Privacy.

If There Is A Bedrock Principle Underlying The First Amendment, It Is That The Government May Not Prohibit The Expression Of An Idea Simply Because Society Finds The Idea Itself Offensive Or Disagreeable.

Law Cannot Stand Aside From The Social Changes Around It.