A NEW CHARTER

To the Editors of The Crimson:

President Nixon argued that his confidential material is not subject to judicial review, yet he subjected his argument to judicial disposition. He let his antagonist, the judiciary, decide the dispute. Contrary to settled Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence at least since Coke, that antagonist was the judge of its own cause.

Thus, that 8-0 Supreme Court decision is representative neither of common sense nor of the rule of law. This fact is further underscored in the court's decision to be unanimous and one-voiced. Such a decision and the consequent ruling constitute an extra-constitutional political assertion. The court did not say what the law is; it said what the government is, and it has no authority to do that.

The great struggles in our nation in these times cannot be contained within our good and faithful Constitution. Time has passed it by. The message at the heart of our agony in this century is this: we need a new charter. James T. Anderson