WIST Quotations

Black, Hugo -- Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 267-68 (1967) [majority opinion]

Dave — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:35:52 +0000

Citizenship is no light trifle to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the name of one of its general or implied grants of power.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 267-68 (1967) [majority opinion]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 144 (1959) [dissent]

Dave — Thu, 18 Aug 2022 15:57:36 +0000

The interest of the people as a whole [lies] in being able to join organizations, advocate causes, and make political “mistakes” without later being subjected to governmental penalties for having dared to think for themselves.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 144 (1959) [dissent]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 144 (1959) [dissent]

Dave — Thu, 25 Aug 2022 14:43:16 +0000

It is this right, the right to err politically, which keeps us strong as a Nation. For no number of laws against communism can have as much effect as the personal conviction which comes from having heard its arguments and rejected them, or from having once accepted its tenets and later recognized their worthlessness.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 144 (1959) [dissent]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 145-46 (1959) [dissent]

Dave — Thu, 01 Sep 2022 17:05:23 +0000

The First Amendment means to me, however, that the only constitutional way our Government can preserve itself is to leave its people the fullest possible freedom to praise, criticize or discuss, as they see fit, all governmental policies and to suggest, if they desire, that even its most fundamental postulates are bad and should be changed.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 145-46 (1959) [dissent]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 146 (1959) [dissent]

Dave — Thu, 15 Sep 2022 14:33:42 +0000

Our Constitution assumes that the common sense of the people and their attachment to our country will enable them, after free discussion, to withstand ideas that are wrong. To say that our patriotism must be protected against false ideas by means other than these is, I think, to make a baseless charge. Unless we can rely on these qualities—if, in short, we begin to punish speech — we cannot honestly proclaim ourselves to be a free Nation and we have lost what the Founders of this land risked their lives and their sacred honor to defend.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 146 (1959) [dissent]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 151 (1959) [dissent]

Dave — Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:53:51 +0000

History should teach us then, that in times of high emotional excitement minority parties and groups which advocate extremely unpopular social or governmental innovations will always be typed as criminal gangs and attempts will always be made to drive them out. It was knowledge of this fact, and of its great dangers, that caused the Founders of our land to enact the First Amendment as a guarantee that neither Congress nor the people would do anything to hinder or destroy the capacity of individuals and groups to seek converts and votes for any cause, however radical or unpalatable their principles might seem under the accepted notions of the time.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 151 (1959) [dissent]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 241 (1940) [majority opinion]

Dave — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:05:04 +0000

Under our constitutional system, courts stand against any winds that blow as havens of refuge for those who might otherwise suffer because they are helpless, weak, outnumbered, or because they are nonconforming victims of prejudice and public excitement. Due process of law, preserved for all by our Constitution, commands that no such practice as that disclosed by this record shall send any accused to his death. No higher duty, no more solemn responsibility, rests upon this Court than that of translating into living law and maintaining this constitutional shield deliberately planned and inscribed for the benefit of every human being subject to our Constitution — of whatever race, creed or persuasion.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 241 (1940) [majority opinion]
(Source)

Overturning a state murder conviction obtained through a coerced confession.

Black, Hugo -- Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 241 (1940) [majority opinion]

Dave — Thu, 29 Sep 2022 20:17:40 +0000

Today, as in ages past, we are not without tragic proof that the exalted power of some governments to punish manufactured crime dictatorially is the handmaid of tyranny. Under our constitutional system, courts stand against any winds that blow as havens of refuge for those who might otherwise suffer because they are helpless, weak, outnumbered, or because they are non-conforming victims of prejudice and public excitement. Due process of law, preserved for all by our Constitution, commands that no such practice as that disclosed by this record shall send any accused to his death. No higher duty, no more solemn responsibility, rests upon this Court, than that of translating into living law and maintaining this constitutional shield deliberately planned and inscribed for the benefit of every human being subject to our Constitution — of whatever race, creed or persuasion.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 241 (1940) [majority opinion]
(Source)

Finding coerced confessions that led to the death penalty conviction of four Black men in Florida were a violation of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Black, Hugo -- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 424-425 (1962) [majority opinion]

Dave — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:53:13 +0000

Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand. The Founders knew that only a few years after the Book of Common Prayer became the only accepted form of religious services in the established Church of England, an Act of Uniformity was passed to compel all Englishmen to attend those services and to make it a criminal offense to conduct or attend religious gatherings of any other kind — a law which was consistently flouted by dissenting religious groups in England and which contributed to widespread persecutions of people like John Bunyan who persisted in holding “unlawful [religious] meetings … to the great disturbance and distraction of the good subjects of this kingdom ….” And they knew that similar persecutions had received the sanction of law in several of the colonies in this country soon after the establishment of official religions in those colonies. It was in large part to get completely away from this sort of systematic religious persecution that the Founders brought into being our Nation, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights with its prohibition against any governmental establishment of religion.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 424-425 (1962) [majority opinion]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 424-425 (1962) [majority opinion]

Dave — Thu, 02 Jun 2022 18:12:30 +0000

There can, of course, be no doubt that New York’s program of daily classroom invocation of God’s blessings as prescribed in the Regents’ prayer is a religious activity. […] We think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 424-425 (1962) [majority opinion]
(Source)

This case ruled that organized school prayer was unconstitutional. The prayer in question, to be recited by each class before their teacher each day, read: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."

Black, Hugo -- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425 (1962) [extemporaneous remarks]

Dave — Thu, 09 Jun 2022 23:48:48 +0000

The prayer of each man from his soul must be his and his alone. This is the genius of the First Amendment. If there is anything clear in the First Amendment, it is that the right of the people to pray in their own way is not be controlled by the election return.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425 (1962) [extemporaneous remarks]
(Source)

Added by Black during his reading of the majority opinion, and not part of the written ruling. The passage follows, "It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."

Black, Hugo -- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 429-30 (1962) [majority opinion]

Dave — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:50:54 +0000

Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say — that the people’s religions must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office. Under that Amendment’s prohibition against governmental establishment of religion, as reinforced by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 429-30 (1962) [majority opinion]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431-432 (1962) [majority opinion]

Dave — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:49:17 +0000

But the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. That same history showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith.

The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its “unhallowed perversion” by a civil magistrate.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431-432 (1962) [majority opinion]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1947) [majority opinion]

Dave — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:59:17 +0000

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1947) [majority opinion]
(Source)

See Jefferson.

Black, Hugo -- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947) [majority opinion]

Dave — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:41:17 +0000

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947) [majority opinion]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947) [majority opinion]

Dave — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:09:10 +0000

That [First] Amendment requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947) [majority opinion]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 482 (1966) [dissent]

Dave — Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:38:06 +0000

I find it difficult to see how talk about sex can be placed under the kind of censorship the Court here approves without subjecting our society to more dangers than we can anticipate at the moment. It was to avoid exactly such dangers that the First Amendment was written and adopted. For myself I would follow the course which I believe is required by the First Amendment, that is, recognize that sex at least as much as any other aspect of life is so much a part of our society that its discussion should not be made a crime.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 482 (1966) [dissent]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 309-310 (1961) [dissent]

Dave — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:32:19 +0000

Bad men, like good men, are entitled to be tried and sentenced in accordance with law, and when it is shown to us that a person is serving an illegal sentence our obligation is to direct that proper steps be taken to correct the wrong done, without regard to the character of a particular defendant or to the possible effect on others who might also want to challenge the legality of their sentences as they have the right to do “at any time” under Rule 35. If it has any relevance at all, the fact that there may be other prisoners in this country’s jails serving illegal sentences would seem to me to make it all the more imperative that we grant appropriate relief in this case rather than search for some obviously dubious excuse to deny this petitioner’s claim.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 309-310 (1961) [dissent]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 US 12, 19 (1956) [majority opinion]

Dave — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 14:56:02 +0000

There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 US 12, 19 (1956) [majority opinion]
(Source)

On the Constitutional requirement for states to ensure not only that trial defense is available to poor defendants, but that appeals costs be addressed as well.

Black, Hugo -- Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 788 (1961) [dissenting]

Dave — Thu, 28 Jul 2022 14:29:09 +0000

The very reason for the First Amendment is to make the people of this country free to think, speak, write and worship as they wish, not as the Government commands.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 788 (1961) [dissenting]
(Source)

The case is frequently called "IAM v. Street" (International Association of Machinists).

Black, Hugo -- McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211-212 (1948) [majority opinion]

Dave — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:49:09 +0000

To hold that a state cannot, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, utilize its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals does not, as counsel urge, manifest a governmental hostility to religion or religious teachings. A manifestation of such hostility would be at war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment’s guaranty of the free exercise of religion. For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211-212 (1948) [majority opinion]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 296-297 (1964) [concurring]

Dave — Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:00:00 +0000

Freedom to discuss public affairs and public officials is unquestionably, as the Court today holds, the kind of speech the First Amendment was primarily designed to keep within the area of free discussion. To punish the exercise of this right to discuss public affairs or to penalize it through libel judgments is to abridge or shut off discussion of the very kind most needed. This Nation, I suspect, can live in peace without libel suits based on public discussions of public affairs and public officials. But I doubt that a country can live in freedom where its people can be made to suffer physically or financially for criticizing their government, its actions, or its officials.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 296-297 (1964) [concurring]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- New York Times Co. v. United States 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) [concurring]

Dave — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 00:25:00 +0000

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
New York Times Co. v. United States 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) [concurring]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) [concurring]

Dave — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:12:27 +0000

In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam War, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) [concurring]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 719 (1971) [concurring]

Dave — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:49:59 +0000

The word “security” is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 719 (1971) [concurring]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 157 (1959) [concurring]

Dave — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:02:43 +0000

Certainly the First Amendment’s language leaves no room for inference that abridgments of speech and press can be made just because they are slight. That Amendment provides, in simple words, that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” I read “no law … abridging” to mean no law abridging.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 157 (1959) [concurring]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 426 (1970) [dissenting]

Dave — Thu, 23 Jun 2022 14:36:51 +0000

Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind that brings new political administrations into temporary power.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 426 (1970) [dissenting]
(Source)

Black, Hugo -- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1964) [majority opinion]

Dave — Tue, 07 Dec 2021 18:48:53 +0000

No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. Our Constitution leaves no room for classification of people in a way that unnecessarily abridges this right.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1964) [majority opinion]
(Source)

The ruling held that congressional districts must have roughly equal populations if possible, such that "one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."

Black, Hugo -- Interview by Edmond Cahn, New York University Law School (1962)

Dave — Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:00:00 +0000

My view is, without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts or whereases, that freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they have or the views they express or the words they speak or write.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Interview by Edmond Cahn, New York University Law School (1962)

Published in "Mr. Justice Black and First Amendment Absolutes: A Public Interview," New York University Law Review 37 (1962): 549, and referenced in "Minority Opinion," Time (1962-06-22).

Black reiterated his absolutist point in his third Carpentier Lecture at Columbia University (1968-03-21), collected in A Constitutional Faith (1968):

My view is, without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts or whereases, that freedom of speech means that government shall not do anything to people, or, in the words of the Magna Carta, move against people, either for the views they have or the views they express or the words they speak or write.

Black, Hugo -- Interview with Eric Serverid and Martin Agronsky, CBS News (1968-12-09)

Dave — Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:00:00 +0000

But they think they know it. And their idea is all the same. You can trace it to the same thing, doesn’t make any difference what it is, what their experience is, or why they’re mad with the Court. It’s all because each one of them believes that the Constitution prohibits that which they think should be prohibited, and it permits that which they think should be permitted.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
Interview with Eric Serverid and Martin Agronsky, CBS News (1968-12-09)

On the public's misunderstanding of the Constitution. Reprinted in "Newsmakers, Objection Overruled," Newsweek (1968-12-09), and in "Justice Black and the Bill of Rights," Southwestern University Law Review (1977).

Black used the same idea on multiple occasions, e.g., at a news conference in Washington, D.C. (1971-02-25):

The layman's Constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional. That about measures up the Constitutional acumen of the average person.

Black, Hugo -- James Madison Lecture, NYU School of Law (1960-02-17)

Dave — Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:00:00 +0000

The Framers knew, better perhaps than we do today, the risks they were taking. They knew that free speech might be the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny. With this knowledge they still believed that the ultimate happiness and security of a nation lies in its ability to explore, to change, to grow and ceaselessly to adapt itself to new knowledge born of inquiry free from any kind of governmental control over the mind and spirit of man. Loyalty comes from love of good government, not fear of a bad one.

Hugo Black (1886-1971) American politician and jurist, US Supreme Court Justice (1937-71)
James Madison Lecture, NYU School of Law (1960-02-17)
(Source)

The inaugural Madison lecture. Reprinted as "The Bill of Rights," NYU Law Review, Vol. 35 (Apr 1960).

Black, Hugo -- James Madison Lecture, NYU School of Law (1960-02-17)

Dave — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:20:54 +0000

It is my belief that there are “absolutes” in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be “absolutes.”

Black, Hugo -- James Madison Lecture, NYU School of Law (1960-02-17)

Dave — Thu, 23 Feb 2023 20:40:42 +0000

Today most Americans seem to have forgotten the ancient evils which forced their ancestors to flee to this new country and to form a government stripped of old powers used to oppress them. But the Americans who supported the Revolution and the adoption of our Constitution knew firsthand the dangers of tyrannical governments. They were familiar with the long existing practice of English persecutions of people wholly because of their religious or political beliefs. They knew that many accused of such offenses had stood, helpless to defend themselves, before biased legislators and judges.

Black, Hugo -- James Madison Lecture, NYU School of Law (1960-02-17)

Dave — Thu, 09 Mar 2023 16:21:31 +0000

Unfortunately, our own colonial history also provided ample reasons for people to be afraid to vest too much power in the national government. There had been bills of attainder here; women had been convicted and sentenced to death as “witches”; Quakers, Baptists, and various Protestant sects had been persecuted from time to time. Roger Williams left Massachusetts to breathe the free air of new Rhode Island. Catholics were barred from holding office in many places. Test oaths were required in some of the colonies to bar any but “Christians” from holding office. In New England Quakers suffered death for their faith. Baptists were sent to jail in Virginia for preaching, which caused Madison, while a very young man, to deplore what he called that “diabolical hell-conceived principle of persecution.”

Black, Hugo -- James Madison Lecture, NYU School of Law (1960-02-17)

Dave — Thu, 16 Mar 2023 23:56:32 +0000

Since the earliest days, philosophers have dreamed of a country where the mind and spirit of man would be free; where there would be no limits to inquiry; where men would be free to explore the unknown and to challenge the most deeply rooted beliefs and principles. Our First Amendment was a bold effort to adopt this principle — to establish a country with no legal restrictions of any kind upon the subjects people could investigate, discuss, and deny.

Black, Hugo -- James Madison Lecture, NYU School of Law (1960-02-17)

Dave — Thu, 06 Apr 2023 18:01:39 +0000

The First Amendment is truly the heart of the Bill of Rights. The Framers balanced its freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition against the needs of a powerful central government, and decided that in those freedoms lies this nation’s only true security. They were not afraid for men to be free. We should not be.