If You Think Aficionados Of A Living

The Wise Do Not Investigate Such Silliness.

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

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.

There Is No Basis In Text, Tradition, Or Even In Contemporary Practice (if That Were Enough), For Finding In The Constitution A Right To Demand Judicial Consideration Of Newly Discovered Evidence Of Innocence Brought Forward After Conviction. My Concern Is That In Making Life Easier For Ourselves We Not Appear To Make It Harder For The Lower Federal Courts, Imposing Upon Them The Burden Of Regularly Analyzing Newly-discovered-evidence-of-innocence Claims In Capital Cases (in Which Event Such Federal Claims, It Can Confidently Be Predicted, Will Become Routine And Even Repetitive).

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.