AN ABSOLUTE YARDSTICK

Baylor University, at Waco, Texas, is about to institute a compulsory course for students on the U.S. Constitution. Last week Secretary of the Navy Robert B. Anderson, attending a special convocation in connection with Baylor's Conference on American Ideals, gave students some thoughts on the Constitution, "the political philosophy upon which it is constructed, and the system of values which give it purpose." His speech, coming from a busy U.S. policymaker, showed a highly articulate feeling for the political and moral principles behind his country's laws. Said Anderson:

"The notion of individual liberty is written large in almost every legal code as far back as Solon, and perhaps even before him. Moreover, the concept of justice as the proper moral objective of the law also appears at a very early date . . .

"The failure of the law to secure the proper measure of freedom and justice to the people stemmed in a large measure not from its purpose but from its interpretation and enforcement. Legislators can deal in principles, but courts and prosecutors must deal in facts and cases. Because law is administered by human beings, its application in each instance is affected both by the conception and the capacity of those individuals charged with its administration. Unless their interpretations of the law are based upon something more than their own subjective notions of justice and right, the application of the law may become something entirely different from its written intent.

"If man is to judge himself competently, the standards he applies to his conduct must of necessity be beyond his power to modify or define. If man has the power to define what his standards are, then they almost inevitably become what he wills them to be. Thus through man's infinite capacity for rationalization, many lies may seem to be truth, deceit may wear the cloak of honor, oppression may be practiced in the name of justice. This, to me, is the great ethical error of materialism, humanism and all other systems of philosophy which do not recognize the independent existence of absolute moral and spiritual values . . .

"Written professions of intent cannot be translated into uniformity of meaning unless there is lodged in the public conscience a clear understanding of the deeper values upon which those professions depend for their substance and worth.

"These values are spiritual and absolute, rather than material and relative . . . quite above and beyond the sphere of human development. It is for man to perceive these values as the lasting, immutable works of his God. He must not conceive them as the property of his own mind, to be twisted and distorted to suit the demands of expediency.

"The indispensable basis for any law that would secure justice and freedom and equality is its identity, both in inception and in execution, with the principles of Christian conduct . .. [The] Declaration of Independence [says]: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' . . . Thus we assert our conviction of the divine source of a set of absolute spiritual values, and with it we express a conviction that these values must not be subverted by any man . . .

"These basic rights and values are repeated and expanded in our Constitution." But the Constitution is not an arrogant assumption that the people's government or even the people will always be right, will always act in accordance with the moral law.

"This document, recognizing the danger of concentrated authority, safeguards these values even further by diffusing the power of those in whose hands it is entrusted.The structure of our government is ample proof of the very real concern our Founding Fathers had over the possibility of a tyranny by the majority. 'The greatest good for the greatest number' is ethically sound only insofar as it is consonant with 'The least harm to the least number . . .' "

The only way to keep the U.S. Constitution safe, Anderson concluded, is by constantly referring back to its spiritual premises: "There is no essential magic in its construction which preserves it inviolable against the corrosion of false doctrine or careless thinking ... It is only from the knowledge and appreciation of the deep roots of their vital heritage of political freedom that the people of a society are able to derive the wisdom needed to safeguard it for those who come after them."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.