![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Former Justice Souter's Speech at Harvard
Jun. 1st, 2010 05:12 pmMany of you, I know, do not wander the pathways of Facebook. And many others read news at varying levels of attention.
So, please let me call to your attention the words of David Souter, Harvard Commencement speaker. It is worth a read. It is worth repetition. And it will be discussed and considered for a long time to come.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/
I cannot decide, easily, which of his words to excerpt here...
"Even the First Amendment, then, expressing the value of speech and publication in the terms of a right as paramount as any fundamental right can be, does not quite get to the point of an absolute guarantee. It fails because the Constitution has to be read as a whole, and when it is, other values crop up in potential conflict with an unfettered right to publish, the value of security for the nation and the value of the president’s authority in matters foreign and military. The explicit terms of the Constitution, in other words, can create a conflict of approved values, and the explicit terms of the Constitution do not resolve that conflict when it arises. The guarantee of the right to publish is unconditional in its terms, and in its terms the power of the government to govern is plenary. A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice. And choices like the ones that the justices envisioned in the Papers case make up much of what we call law."
Italics and bolding mine.
So, please let me call to your attention the words of David Souter, Harvard Commencement speaker. It is worth a read. It is worth repetition. And it will be discussed and considered for a long time to come.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/
I cannot decide, easily, which of his words to excerpt here...
"Even the First Amendment, then, expressing the value of speech and publication in the terms of a right as paramount as any fundamental right can be, does not quite get to the point of an absolute guarantee. It fails because the Constitution has to be read as a whole, and when it is, other values crop up in potential conflict with an unfettered right to publish, the value of security for the nation and the value of the president’s authority in matters foreign and military. The explicit terms of the Constitution, in other words, can create a conflict of approved values, and the explicit terms of the Constitution do not resolve that conflict when it arises. The guarantee of the right to publish is unconditional in its terms, and in its terms the power of the government to govern is plenary. A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice. And choices like the ones that the justices envisioned in the Papers case make up much of what we call law."
Italics and bolding mine.
