I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the ' wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right to property.

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.

For me this is not something that can be swept under the rug and forgotten in the interest of forced Sunday togetherness.

The Court today holds the Congress may say that some of the poor are too poor even to go bankrupt. I cannot agree.

The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights.