Plugs for the Loopholes

Under the doctrine of judicial review, the U.S. Supreme Court has the last word on basic U.S. law--and no good lawyer would have it otherwise. Likewise, good U.S. lawyers believe that they have a professional responsibility to judge the kind of law laid down by the court, and to make recommendations for statutes that would improve the legal fabric of the U.S. Last week the American Bar Association's 246-member House of Delegates reviewed the procession of Supreme Court decisions in internal security cases, sharply recommended that Congress plug the serious loopholes opened up by court's rulings and redefinitions.

The delegates carefully avoided attacking the decisions themselves; in fact, the list of recommendations hailed the Supreme Court and the judiciary as the "ultimate guardians of the Bill of Rights." and disapproved "omnibus proposals" to limit the court's jurisdiction. But pointedly enough, the delegates proceeded to urge Congress to:

P: Affirm that a state can use its police powers to prevent "sedition" against the Federal Government, thus erasing the 1956 opinion (TIME, April 16. 1956). written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. that freed Pennsylvania's top Communist Steve Nelson from prosecution under a state antisedition act.

P: Spell out "thoroughly, carefully and precisely" the authority of the House Un-American Activities Committee, to avoid a duplication of the court opinion that reversed the contempt-of-Congress conviction of Labor Organizer John Watkins (TIME, July1, 1957).

P: Amend the Smith Act so as to counteract the Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of the words "organize" and "advocate" that upset the basis of the Federal Government's prosecution of active Communists (TIME, July 1, 1957). Such amendment is necessary, said the recommendations, "so that this nation need not be forced to delay the invoking of the judicial process until such time as the damage has already been wrought."

P: Authorize the Federal Government to "require as a condition of employment" that federal employees "shall not refuse" to answer questions about past or present Communist ties, thus overturning the effect of the Cole v. Young case (TIME, June 25, 1956), which limited federal loyalty inquiries only to employees holding "sensitive" jobs.

The recommendations were drawn up by the A.B.A.'s ten-man Special Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives, headed by New York

Lawyer Peter Campbell Brown, 45, chairman in 1952-53 of the federal Subversive Activities Control Board. Last summer the Brown committee drafted a report blasting the Supreme Court's 1956-58 security decisions so harshly that Chief Justice Warren resigned from the A.B.A. (his resignation became final a fortnight ago). A.B.A. President Ross Malone stressed last week that in adopting the Brown committee's recommendations, the House of Delegates was not okaying its critical report.

But all the soft wording could not disguise the fact the nation's foremost lawyers (A.B.A. membership: 94,000) had told the nation's highest court that they were thoroughly perturbed about the state of U.S. internal security law as court decisions had left it.

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