...alternative. I would, therefore, close with the words of Mr. Justice Jackson, who observed 55 years ago: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw...and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." Unfortunately, right now our first freedom may...

...restore was best summarized by Mr. Justice Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw...and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Scalia, in Smith, took a radically different...

...such a contest to the judicial arena" because all effective means of political change were left free: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw...press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other funda[ 405 ] mental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."71...

...Robert, not Jesse. Mr. NADLER. I said "Justice." Mr. STERN. It is your New York accent. Mr. NADLER. "The very purpose of a bill of rights was to withdraw...right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, free press, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a...

...rights to popular majorities, Jackson said, undermines the "very purpose of a Bill of Rights," which "was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes...as legal principles to be applied by the courts." Such fundamental rights "may not be submitted to vote; they depend upon the outcome of no elections."22...

...unpredictable nature of democratic rule. "The very purpose of a bill of rights," said Justice Jackson, "was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes...controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and...

...essentially a legislative, not ajudicial, function', 42 and that 'the very purpose of a bill of rights is to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes...controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities'. 43 DidcottJ then argues that the decision to abolish or retain capital punishment is a constitutional...

...subjects beyond the reach of majorities, one's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech and free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights, may not be submitted to a vote. They depend on the outcome of no elections." It is time for Congress to take action. The best...

...individual constitutional rights against the will of the people, reiterating that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy and place them beyond the reach of the majorities and government officials (also see Andersen, 1940-41;...

...the principle enunciated hy Justice Jackson seems applicahle in this context ai wel). See id. at 638: The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain suhjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them heyond the reach of majorities...