The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rathe, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other.

The use of violence as an instrument of persuasion is therefore inviting and seems to the discontented to be the only effective protest.

The challenge to our liberties comes frequently not from those who consciously seek to destroy our system of government, but from men of goodwill - good men who allow their proper concerns to blind them to the fact that what they propose to accomplish involves an impairment of liberty.

No patent medicine was ever put to wider and more varied use than the Fourteenth Amendment.

The First and Fourteenth Amendments say that Congress and the States shall make "no law" which abridges freedom of speech or of the press. In order to sanction a system of censorship I would have to say that "no law" does not mean what it says, that "no law" is qualified to mean "some" laws. I cannot take this step.

We are rapidly entering the age of no privacy, where everyone is open to surveillance at all times; where there are no secrets from government.

We do not sit as a super-legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation.