The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, the Pope defended his predecessor Pius XII for helping Jews during World War II. The U. S. trade deficit rose for the fourth month, to a new record in July. Secretary of State Shultz said the Soviets were raising new obstacles to an arms agreement. We'll have details in our news summary in a moment. Jim? JIM LEHRER: After the news summary, New York Times columnist Leonard Silk explains why the trade deficit is up again. Then comes a major look at the meaning of the Constitution through the eyes and minds of some New Yorkers and of Ellen Goodman, John Silber, Donald Rumsfeld, and Eleanor Holmes Norton. We close with a Roger Mudd essay on the separation of church and state. News Summary MacNEIL: Pope John Paul II and American Jewish leaders met in Miami today for an open dialogue about issues straining relations, the Holocaust and recognition of the state of Israel. Some of the 200 Jewish leaders present described it as a new beginning. Their spokesman Rabbi Mordecai Waxman told the Pope that reconciliation between the two faiths was long overdue. In reply, the Pope used the Hebrew word, ''Shoah'' for the Holocaust.

Rabbi MORDECAI WAXMAN, Synagogue Council of America: Anti semitism may affect the body of the Jew, but history has tragically shown that it assaults the soul of the Christian worlds. Greater attention, however, needs to be paid, as has been indicated to the Christian roots of anti semitism. The teaching of contempt for Jews and Judaism must be ended once and for all. The teaching of contempt -- I put it in quotation marks -- reaped a demonic harvest during the shoah, in which one third of the Jewish people were murdered as a central element of the Nazi's policy. POPE JOHN PAUL II: To understand even more deeply the meaning of the shoah and historical roots of anti semitism that are related to it. Joint cooperation and studies by Catholics and Jews on the shoah should be continued. So never again will such a horror be possible. Never again. MacNEIL: The Pope defended his wartime predecessor Pius XII against criticisms that he did not speak out about the extermination of Jews by the Nazis. He said, ''I'm convinced history will reveal even more clearly and convincingly how hard and effectively Pius worked to assist them during the Second World War. There was no mention of another source of tension -- the Pope's recent meeting with Austrian President Kurt Waldheim, who's been accused of complicity in war crimes, which he denies. Jim? LEHRER: The Pope then went on to Tamiami Park in Miami to conduct the first public mass of his trip. But heavy rain and lightening came pouring down on him and some 230,000 worshippers, and the mass was cut short. Officials said lightening actually hit on the field, but no injuries were reported. From Miami he went on to Columbia, South Carolina, for a late afternoon prayer service, and for a meeting with 26 protestant religious leaders. The gathering included the largest cross section of U. S. church leaders ever to meet with a Pope. The pope will travel to New Orleans later this evening, spend Saturday there, then proceed to San Antonio, Texas, on Sunday. MacNEIL: In economic news, the U. S. trade deficit, the amount by which imports exceed exports, rose in July for the fourth straight month, and by a record monthly amount, $16. 47 billion. Although a third of the deficit occurred in trade with Japan, the deficit with Japan alone actually went down. Overall, the export of American made goods declined in July. In other news, wholesale inflation went up in June and July, was unchanged in August, but fixed term mortgage rates hit their highest weekly level in a year and a half. The federal home loan mortgage corporation said fixed rate mortgages averaged 10. 91% this week. LEHRER: Secretary of State Shultz today accused the Soviet Union of placing new obstacles in the way of an arms agreement. He said the United States is prepared to sign a treaty abolishing medium range missiles, but the Soviets keep adding new demands. Shultz will meet next week in Washington with Soviet Foreign Minister Edvard Shevardnadze. He spoke today in an interview with Reuters News Service and the TV news agency Viznews.

GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State: The Soviets keep adding new things, seldom on the extraneous side, and obviously, if they have decided they don't want to conclude an arms control agreement after all this effort, then we won't have one. But insofar as the United States is concerned, we think that an agreement along the lines that has been worked out would be constructive. We're prepared to sign it. But if they want to walk away from this effort, why, it's up to them. LEHRER: The Deputy Soviet Foreign Minister today had his own version of what's going on. Vladimir Petrovsky accused the United States of stalling in the Geneva talks. He said there were many obstacles to overcome before a deal could be reached. MacNEIL: U. S. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar arrived in Teheran today and pursued a Persian Gulf peace. Iran's president Ali Khamenei announced that his country was ready to listen to reasonable words. But Parliamentary speaker Hashemi Rafsanjani said Iran would not risk an unconditional cease fire, as mandated by the U. N. Security Council resolution passed in July. Chad and Libya declared a truce in their border war today. But almost immediately Chad accused Libya of mounting two more attacks. The border area in dispute is the mineral rich Aozou region in the Sahara Desert, which both countries claim and which Libya annexed in 1973. Today's truce was arranged by the Organization of African Unity. LEHRER: Protests in South Korea turned violent today. Radical students threw firebombs and rocks at police on the streets of Seoul. Police responded with tear gas and rocks. The Associated Press described the clashes as vicious. There were also student rallies at 39 other Korean cities, all demanding the immediate ouster of Korean President Chun Doo Hwan. MacNEIL: In Washington, the parents of three young hemophiliacs told Congress the story today of threats and harrassments that began after their sons tested positive for the AIDS virus. The ordeal of the Ray family included a boycott to bar their sons from a Florida school and a fire that destroyed their home. Speaking before a Senate committee, Mrs. Ray said she hoped their story would make Americans more aware of discrimination against people with AIDS.

LOUISE RAY: We need to join together and try to help each other rather than turning our backs and being afraid. And I think the biggest problem is that people are not educated. Two years ago, I had a chance to send my boys to hemophilia camp. And I didn't know anything about AIDS, but this was during the time when the story about Ryan White was so big. And I refused to let me kids go, because I didn't want them to catch AIDS. And I'm ashamed of myself for that now. But the thing of it is I went out and I learned. I learned how it's transmitted, I learned about the myths and what they are. And it makes a big difference. LEHRER: And finally in the news, Lorne Greene died today in Santa Monica, California. He played Ben Cartwright, the tough but gentle patriarch in the TV series Bonanza. His death was caused by complications from surgery for a perforated ulcer. He was 72 years old. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to why the trade deficit won't go down, the meaning of the Constitution, and a Roger Mudd essay on church and state. Trade Talk MacNEIL: First up tonight, the record U. S. trade deficit. Last month, imports exceeded exports by close to $16. 5 billion, an all time high. At its present rate, according to government estimates, the trade deficit will hit a record $170 billion by the end of the year. Weaker sales overseas are blamed for today's poor figures, and private economists are concerned that the long awaited turn around in trade is not happening, despite the continued fall in the value of the dollar. In an unusual twist, the deficit with Japan fell slightly during July, but the imbalance with European countries rose by a billion dollars. The bad news comes as Congress is preparing major trade legislation, which the President opposes. Here, to lay out the meaning of today's figures, and the impact they will have on the trade battle in Washington is Leonard Silk, economics columnist for the New York Times. Mr. Silk, how bad is the bad news? LEONARD SILK, New York Times: I think it's pretty bad. We had heard from the Administration and through a great many private economists that the trade figures would be improving this year. And that that would be a means of calming congress down on protectionist trade legislation. I think there are reasons certainly to worry about the effects on the overall economy of continuing big trade deficits. I'm not quite so worried about the effect on protectionist trade legislation, however. MacNEIL: Well, let's go to the effects on the overall economy. How could it have a bad effect? Mr. SILK: Well, one effect would be, of course, on the dollar. If these trade deficits don't improve, it is quite probable that dealers in the foreign exchange markets and other people who hold dollars will begin to worry about how good their money is, and will begin not only not to invest in the United States, but to sell existing investments that they've already made in the United States. If that should happen, then there would be a shortage of savings for investment, a shortage of savings to finance the federal budget deficit, and all of that would very likely put heavy pressure on interest rates, causing them to rise, and causing people to stop building houses, or buying cars, and putting the economy into recession. MacNEIL: Because presumably if the dollar came under renewed pressure, the Federal Reserve Board would want to do something about that, and might raise the discount rate again. Would that be a logical -- ? Mr. SILK: That's right. The most recent move that the Fed made -- raising the discount rate half a point to 6% -- was, I think, related to the weakness of the dollar. It was also related to fears of future inflation. The Fed advertised the second more than the first. Nevertheless, I think that it's clear that the strength of the dollar is considered very important by the monetary authority and they would be likely to tighten money, put up interest rates if necessary to defend the dollar. MacNEIL: How do you explain the fact that even though the value of the dollar has depreciated substantially in the last year and a half, encouraged for a while by the administration, which hoped this was going to bring the trade deficit around, that the deficit has started again to worsen? Mr. SILK: Well, there are several factors involved. These things are always extremely complicated. One, of course, is the value of the dollar itself. But that has its effect -- indirectly, it has its effect on the prices that we charge for the exports that we send abroad and the prices that foreigners charge. So there is not necessarily a one to one relationship between a depreciating currency and what you have to pay for, say, a Toyota, or a Nissan Maxima, or a German machine tool. If the Germans or Japanese decide not to increase their prices as much as the decline of the dollar would warrant, then they don't, because they want to hold onto a market, and then you might not have a quick effect. The second factor is the rate of growth of the American economy in relationship to the rate of growth of foreign economies. If the European economy is stagnating, which it has been doing, then Europeans don't want to buy American goods. And in fact, they push harder to hold onto the markets they've already got -- such as the American market. The fact is that we have been doing as well as, or better than, virtually all of our trading partners. It has not been a spectacular performance, but it's still been better than theirs. MacNEIL: Why did the deficit -- I understand now why it stayed the same or went up with European countries. They're not buying American goods because their economies are stagnant. Why did the deficit improve slightly with Japan? Are they now responsive to all the pressure to get them to buy more American goods? Mr. SILK: Well, the fall of the dollar against the yen has been greater than against I think virtually any other currency, so you expect a bigger bang for -- a bigger depreciation. I think also it may well be the Japanese policy had something to do with it, because they've been very much concerned about protectionism in America, which has focused on Japan. In any case, it's hard to find strong evidence in the Japanese figures as far as I'm concerned for anything really dramatic. The improvements in product lines are agricultural goods. Some improvement on the import side, with us buying fewer Japanese cars, I suppose, buying more Korean cars. But as yet, I don't see a dramatic turn around, at least one that quite validates the figures. MacNEIL: Let's come back to the trade legislation now. Next week, later in the week, the Congress is going to start trying to reconcile the trade bills passed by the two houses. How is this going to affect the move toward some kind of protectionist legislation? Mr. SILK: Well, for people who are already convinced that we need it, it gives them another bargaining fact. And in that sense, at least marginally it adds to the pressures for protectionist legislation. But I think that on the whole it doesn't change the picture materially. For one thing, much of the American concern has been directed at Japan. And this improvement -- and let's hope it's true -- in our bilateral relations with Japan will cool down those anti Japanese emotions. Secondly, I think that the Democrats are not really united on the desirabilityof strong trade legislation. Some of them -- after all, it was Democrats who fought for liberal trade legislation going all the way back to the Roosevelt Administration. So I think one can oversimplify Democratic position on the trade bill. There of course is the President's threat of a veto, which -- MacNEIL: Does this make it harder for him to veto, because it just increases public awareness of a problem that seems to be growing? Mr. SILK: Well, obviously, it depends on the bill that he gets. And the President has -- despite the rhetoric -- been willing to do various things, including hit back at Japan over semiconductors and support quotas on Japanese cars. And on steel imports, and so forth. So the President's hands are not perfectly clean on the trade issue. And it may well be that a relatively moderate trade bill is something that he would sign. But I think the main reason not to fear the worst here, is that employment has been improving and the unemployment figures have gone down. And I think that the real cutting edge of protectionist trade legislation is in jobs or loss of jobs, not in the raw numbers again. MacNEIL: Okay. Leonard Silk, thank you for joining us. 200 Years LEHRER: ''The business being closed, the members adjourned to the city tavern, dined together and took a cordial leave of each other, after which I returned to my lodgings and retired to meditate on the momentous work which had been executed. '' That is quote George Washington wrote in his diary the night of September 17, 1787. The momentous work was the signing of a Constitution for the United States of America, by the members of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. We mark the 200th anniversary of that work by discussing it with Americans 200 years later. First, some New York City Americans, interviewed by correspondent June Massell.

JUNE MASSELL: How important is the Constitution to you? SUE ANN GERSHENSON, teacher: Extremely important. When I think of the Constitution, I think of this past Sunday in the park. I was by the band shell, and the park was crowded with people. And there were people from all walks of life there. Black, white, Hispanic, rich, poor. And I looked around, and everyone was having a wonderful time together listening to an African band play. And I said to my husband, ''This is what Utopia is to me. Everyone of all walks of life being with one another and being happy. '' SHAMPELLE EVERETT, Civil Servant: I've seen a lot of countries and the way freedom is lacking. I guess the Constitution protects my rights, especially being that I'm black. There are a lot of opportunities that are open to me where blacks are taken advantage of. SANDRA AUSTIN, former social worker: I think it's provided a safety valve. It's prevented there from being total chaos, because black Americans can go through the court system and seem to get some kind of redress to the problems that face them on a daily basis. MASSELL: How important do you think the Constitution is? ELIZABETH RYAN, vendor: I think it's very important, but I don't feel like I have a very good understanding of what it really is. I think it's obviously the main legal document that guarantees people certain rights in this country, and it's one of the things that makes us a little bit different from a number of other places. But I have to say I almost feel a little embarrassed when I know this is the year of the Constitution, but I don't feel that I really have a concept. Of course, I've read of what it really is, and I know it's been in a state of constant evolution. I think that's why the other things that's interesting about it -- it's not a static document. [clip of people at citizenship JUDGE:ceremony] The next thing we will do as citizens of this new nation of yours is pledge allegiance to the flag. MARITZAS WILLIAMS, new citizen: It is one of the few countries in the world where people can live freely. I have had the opportunity to travel abroad and recognize, and that's why I became an American citizen, because one has rights that can be exercised. There are courts. There are means of exercising the right that you don't find in other countries. MASSELL: What do you think the founding fathers had in mind? MARIO CURCIO, new citizen: To make this a unique place. Freer than any other place. A place where all people could find the refuge if needed. A place where they will always be free. And they want it to last, so they made sure to put it all in writing. MASSELL: How do you think our country might be different if we didn't have a Constitution? JIM O'NEILL: Well, it would be communist -- I don't know. We wouldn't have a president, Declaration of Independence, the fourth of July. I mean, those are all important things to each and every American. And the equality of man. Everybody has an opinion and everybody's valued at that opinion. And that's the most important part of it all. SAM COHEN, Salesman: It would be like an Eastern bloc country. There would be no freedoms, people would walk around, it would be dark and dingy and I don't think people would be happy. I think they would probably want to go to another country that did have a constitution like everybody comes to here. Mr. EVERETT: This country would be like South Africa. Blacks wouldn't have any rights. Minorities wouldn't have any rights at all. We would work for nothing. Live nowhere. Wouldn't even have the opportunity to advance or get any place. So without the Constitution I really believe this would be a South Africa -- Johannesburg. MASSELL: Which amendments do you think are the most important? JOY HUDES, dentist: I think the most important are the Bill of Rights -- at least to me, that's the part I count on the most. That's the part that gives me the freedom to say what I want to say, to talk to you right now and it gives you the freedom to say what you want to say when you're talking to us every night. So I also like the idea that what I read in the paper may be prejudiced of course, but it isn't censored. That's important to me. ROBERT BECKHARDT, photographer: I think freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, basically. And human rights. And the 18th Amendment. To be able to drink back in the (unintelligible) (laughter). Ms. RYAN: I have to be honest with you, and I consider myself a pretty educated person. I don't really have a good grasp of what -- of which amendments did what. And I think probably a lot of people are like me. You just don't think about it. And unless you're studying the document, and you're a lawyer, and have some reason to be in touch with that. We're farmers, we're very overwhelmed with the reality of what we do. But I still went to college, and I have to tell you I probably couldn't name one single amendment. MASSELL: The Constitution provides for equal protection under the laws. Do you think that's been adhered to? Mr. BECKHARDT: Basically, yes. There have been lots of abuses of power, there's no question about it. And there are lots of examples of injustice, faulty justices with the legal system. But it bends and stretches, and nothing is perfect, but this is the most perfect one. Ms. GERSHENSON: I don't think that people really get the equal chances that they should and are supposed to get in the constitution as written. But so many other things are involved, red tape, politics, doesn't come out equal. It should. But it doesn't. MASSELL: Does that make you feel as though the Constitution has failed us? MASSELL: No. We've failed it. MICHELLE JACOBS, student: I think that white upper middle class people -- and I think it's been proven -- are unbelievably more equality under our lives, and I think that being poor in this country in general, if you're going to get into more trouble if you've gotten into any trouble. And for the most part, wealthy people who do things that are illegal seem to be able to get away with it, or get much less strict punishment. MASSELL: Do you think the Constitution has failed us? Ms. JACOBS: In that way, yes. Mr. CURCIO: First you have to change the people. It's not just a matter of changing, because the law is there, the constitution is already there. It's a matter of convincing the people to work harmoniously. MASSELL: You know, the Constitution was written 200 years ago. Do you think it's still relevant today? Ms. GERSHENSON: Yes! Because the things they wrote 200 years ago are actually pertinent to what our lifestyle could or should be today. As I said, I don't think that we've made it work the way it could or should work if everyone really did follow it. The Constitution said, and the laws were written there. I'm getting too excited! (laughter) LEHRER: Now the views of four other Americans: Eleanor Holmes Norton, former Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, now a professor of law at the Georgetown University law center; Ellen Goodman, Pulitzer Prize Winning syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe; John Silber, President of Boston University; and former Republican Congressman and cabinet officer, Donald Rumsfeld, who joins us from Chicago. Dr. Silber, would this country be like South Africa without our Constitution, as the young man said? Dr. JOHN SILBER, President, Boston University: Well, I think without our Constitution, it might be like South Africa, it might be like the Soviet Union. It wouldn't be like the way it is. The most interesting thing about the Constitution, I think, is as it was written in the practice of the country following its ratification, it was deficient in the treatment of women, it was deficient in the treatment of the blacks. But it contained principles that created a moral force for reform that led to the 19th Amendment that put women back into power in the United States and gave them the right to vote. And it also created the moral force that led finally to the Civil War and then to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. So its deficiencies in practice and as it was carried out were revealed in the principles themselves. So that for that reason, I think it's extremely valuable that we have it, and the deficiencies of our practice do not invalidate the soundness of the principles. LEHRER: Eleanor Holmes Norton, Dr. Silber used the term ''moral force. '' Is that what the Constitution is? ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Georgetown University Law Center: We'd like to think it is. Of course, the same constitution that has given us freedom for the young black man, for example, who spoke -- they also gave us separate but equal -- and I'm not sure what moral forces that constitution was. I'm not sure what the moral force of the constitution of the court of the Dred Scott decision was. But I am sure that the constitution has been a developing experience which corrects itself. We get corrective interpretation, and we've got that with respect to race, we've got that with respect to gender, and it is the constitution that has done it. LEHRER: Isn't it the people who have interpreted it, rather than the piece -- the piece of paper hasn't changed? Ms. NORTON: The piece of paper is a piece of parchment at the archives, and while there are those who argue from the philosophy of original intent, and somehow that paper tells us something. You're right. And what tells us something are those who interpret that piece of paper. And we have seen that that piece of paper can be interpreted in a venal way as it was in the 19th and 20th century with respect to blacks. Or it can be interpreted so as to exude a moral force, as with the Brown Decision. But the fact is that it was the same Constitution, it was the same 14th Amendment that was being interpreted both times. There are constitutional democracies. There are democracies, many democracies in the world which live without a constitution. In our own motherland, if you will, the British lived without one. One wonders whether a democracy as diverse as ours, with antagonistic actors going at one another all the time, could have been stable and thoroughly democratic if there had not been a Constitution. LEHRER: Dr. Silber, do you want to comment? Dr. SILBER: Well, it is important to note that the parchment did change. It had an addition made. When Dred Scott was handed down, the Constitution did not protect the rights of slaves, it did not recognize slaves as free men. The Civil War intervened, and when the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed, they weren't passed as an interpretation of five judges out of nine on the Supreme Court. Those were passed by 3/4 of the states that ratified those amendments. I think it is very important that we continue to look to the original intent. Carl Rowan said in an article that I read today in the Boston newspaper, that it wasn't the job of the courts to find out what was the intent of the framers of the Constitution. It was the job of the courts to do justice. Now, that, I think, is a grave mistake. Because if you decide that five judges on the Supreme Court are not bound by the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, it means that we can have an interpretation of the courts that will alienate the people from the Constitution. We insure that the Constitution continues to be a consentual document because it is to be amended when it is not something that people can find just. LEHRER: You've opened up one I want to come back to in a moment. But I wanted to ask Ellen Goodman. Based on what the folks said to June Massell in New York and a little bit of what Eleanor Holmes Norton and John Silber seem to be saying is if it wasn't for the Constitution, we Americans would be barbaric. We would mistreat the minorities. It is the Constitution that makes us do right. Am I misreading that? What do you think? ELLEN GOODMAN, syndicated columnist: I hear what you're saying. One of the interesting things is the references in the pieces were largely to the Bill of Rights, which wasn't in the Constitution when it was signed. We're talking about the 200th anniversary of a document which forms the government, the checks and balances of the government. And everybody -- and we take that so much for granted. Whatthe framers were concerned about was what is this government going to look like? How are we going to rule people? How are we going to keep this collection of states together? And what we think of as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, which came afterwards -- I'll just make that note. But our concept -- LEHRER: For discussion purposes, let's include the Bill of Rights. Ms. GOODMAN: Sorry. Historical footnote. LEHRER: Right. Exactly, exactly. But do you think the Constitution is what keeps us walking the straight and narrow? As little or as much as we do? Ms. GOODMAN: People have mythic relationships to pieces of paper, to documents that reinforce. They give them a sense of authenticity. Give them a feeling that they're not just dealing with their feelings of the moment, but that there's some skeletal framework. And that's very important. We think we're referring back to a piece of paper to something that's fundamental, and that supports your viewpoint. I don't think we'd all be out clawing at each other, but we say to ourselves, we are a people of laws, we are a people of history. And that solidifies our sense of justice. LEHRER: Donald Rumsfeld, as I said in introducing you, you were a member of Congress, you served in the cabinet, you were also a White House Chief of Staff. Were you ever involved in situations where somebody said in your presence, ''Well, that would be a really neat thing to do, but we can't do it because that would be unconstitutional. ''? DONALD RUMSFELD, former presidential advisor: Well, I can't recall specific instances like that. There's no question but that there are times during discussions on the House floor, or in the executive branch where there is a recognition that something is proscribed generally by a statute. I can't recall any instance where somebody has said, let's do something, but we can't do it because it's unconstitutional. LEHRER: I don't necessarily mean hold up a Seven Eleven store or anything like that. I mean just -- it doesn't have to be a crime necessarily. What I'm getting at, as a man who's served an awful lot of time in various positions in the government of the United States, was the Constitution a part of your life, day to day, functioning as a member of this government? Mr. RUMSFELD: Absolutely. The way I look at the Constitution, it really was a reflection of the drafters' concerns and fears of too much government, their hopes and their aspirations. And while it is a written document, it came out of that debate, that discussion, the disagreements, and it reflected the hopes for the direction of the country and established a structure within which we could live our lives in a way that was really notably different than people were living their lives in most other countries of the world. And I think it's that structure that provides a great deal of confidence for the American people. The protection of rights. And that we are a nation of laws. And that it is not easy where people can -- you just on a whim alter that document. I think that's terribly important and the relationship between that structure and political and economic freedom, I think, has been the fundamental reason why our country has had such wonderful success. There are a number of countries of the world that have written constitutions that sound good on paper, read well, but in fact, they don't have the traditions, the history and, as Dr. Silber said, the consensurable aspects to the Constitution. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Ellen Goodman, that our constitution is unique and that most of the people accept it as the piece of paper that counts in their lives? Ms. GOODMAN: It's a piece of paper that's -- this we agree upon. There are things that are missing in it. I know what the original intent of the framers was, vis a vis blacks, vis a vis women, which was to leave them out. And I still feel that the Constitution doesn't include women fully as full citizens. I would like another amendment to it -- an Equal Rights Amendment. I think that we do have that sense that there is a consensus -- Ms. NORTON: That consensus, though, develops over time. I mean, whether there is any consensus, for example, in 1954 when the Supreme Court said that separate but equal was unconstitutional, I'll tell you what kind of consensus it was. There were states in the south that acted like they wanted to secede, and if anything, the majority of the American people didn't agree with that decision at that time, and they came to agree with it. I don't agree with Dr. Silber that the amendment process takes care of matters of interpretation. For example -- let me finish -- for example, the 14th Amendment, 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were added precisely to deal with the question that was only solved in 1954, and only begun to be solved then. But black people had to live for almost 100 years with an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that seemed positively perverse -- left then in a -- as the young man said who was interviewed -- with a kind of apartheid interpretation of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment. What we cannot avoid is that all the actors in the three branches have to interpret the Constitution. And whether they say they are interpreting it according to somebody's original notion, they have really not dug up James Madison to find out what was on his mind, and if they did, they might be appalled. But it falls to us to make this document work, to keep it from becoming obsolescent. And yet, to attend to it's essential guidance. It's a very delicate process, but there's no shortcut to it by saying all you have to do is find out what was in Adams' mind and then the process takes care of itself. Dr. SILBER: I don't disagree with most of what Ms. Norton has said. Because I do agree that interpretation is required. Yet there are several cases in which interpretation is simply not the option of the judge. For example, suppose the Supreme Court wants to declare that capital punishment is unconstitutional. Now, it seems to me -- I happen to be opposed to capital punishment. I was the President of the Texas Society to Abolish Capital Punishment. But it has never occurred to me that so far as the federal government is concerned, it could be abolished except by amendment of the Constitution. Because I think that if you decide that in terms of 20th century jurisprudence, five judges on the Supreme Court can interpret the meaning of prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment to mean that you can't have capital punishment, it would be simply to amend the Constitution by fiat of five judges. I think the amendment process is very important, because it is the discipline that prevents the tyranny of the majority. It is the discipline that requires 3/4 of the people to come to a consensus that something has to change. Ms. GOODMAN: Except obviously you're not going to amend the Constitution every time you have to deal with a case, for example -- certainly James Madison had no opinion on in vitro fertilization. Or on any of the technological -- we can't divine, except by hiring a psychic, what their attitudes would have been towards any of the technological, let alone social innovations of the last 200 years. And these were men who, after all, themselves lived in a period of enormous change. They were very sensitive to the issues of change. And they built into the Constitution ambiguities on purpose that would be open to interpretation, as well as having the Constitution open to amendment. A lot of the language was purposely fuzzy, if you read the documents of compromise. So that they had a little sweetening -- we'll say -- have a little rum, so that maybe Georgia could interpret the Constitution differently also from Connecticut. They were trying to get a consensus also to actually have this thing ratified. And we all know that they went in to make a few adjustments to the Articles of Confederation and came out with this new document, to the great shock of the people. So they were loose on purpose. LEHRER: Well, what do you think about that, Donald Rumsfeld? Mr. RUMSFELD: Well, I think it's an important point. And there may be somewhat of a semantic problem here with respect to the word, ''interpretation. '' But I think that Dr. Silber is absolutely correct when he indicates, as I understand him, that it's not the responsibility of the nine members of the Supreme Court to legislate or to amend the Constitution in their decision making process. And that is a protection for all Americans. And the amendment process to the Constitution is there to provide the relief valve. Now, as Ellen says, there's no question but that any document that is negotiated out over a period of days and weeks ultimately ends up with some ambiguities, some of which were calculated, and some of which are uncalculated, all of which were probably necessary to get it passed. And it isn't to suggest that any drafter of the Constitution or person that voted on it, had in their mind the rapid pace of technology and the changes that took place in our society. But nonetheless, the Constitution is not to be amended by judges. That process is left to the people, left to the Congress and the states, and properly so, because it protects all of us. LEHRER: Let's go to your point, then. Was the 1954 Brown decision interpreting the Constitution or mandating by fiat? Ms. NORTON: Well, indeed -- by the way, the same Constitution, at least the 14th Amendment very specifically excluded women, yet it's been interpreted to include women, and many who oppose the Equal Rights Amendment said we didn't need it because the 14th Amendment already included women. I wonder how he got that except by interpretation. I'd like to say, though, a word about this notion that all we have to do is amend the Constitution. For most of the amendments to the Constitution, there's one I'm for, as Ellen says, that has not been passed quite yet, the Equal Rights Amendment. I also am leery about judges who go off on their own. After all, judges went off on their own and interpreted the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment in a way that did people I have some kinship with great harm. One can have no neutral or principal view that you ought to always submit to how judges interpret the Constitution. But it also ought be said that there aren't very many amendments to the Constitution. And that the American people have shown a great reluctance to amend the Constitution every time a new problem arises. There's a reason for that, I think. And it's implicit -- and what seems to be an intuitive understanding that in a very diverse country, which you want to be stable, and you want to be stable because our economic health comes out of that stability, you don't want to do much amendment. And therefore, when an interpretation comes, it lies a bit. And if public opinion reconciles to that interpretation, then the most we can say is that interpretation could not have been altogether wrong. If public opinion finds such an interpretation consistently to be irreconcilable, then -- and it seems to me only then -- should the amendment process come into play. And if history is any guide, that's the way the American people have believed, because while people are always popping off, especially in recent years, about amendments, none of those amendments have in fact seen light of day. LEHRER: Ellen Goodman, as a member of the working press, are you conscious of the Constitution and the fact that the Constitution makes it possible to do what you do for a living? Ms. GOODMAN: Sure. Particularly having been sued and having been vindicated! What I do for a living is tell people what I think. Now, without the First Amendment, I would not be telling people what I think with anywhere near the security that I do now. I find the First Amendment is literally the working tool, even before the Word Processor. LEHRER: Is the word processor -- the word processor! (laughter) Is the Constitutional a working tool for you as a professional educator, Dr. Silber? Dr. SILBER: Yes, it is. I think that it is a very strong guide, and it's one of the ways in which one tries to inform students of the difference between a substantive issue and a procedural issue. The fact that a person disagrees with the Constitution, or disagrees with a particular law in this country doesn't give him any right to just kick over the traces and introduce anarchy. Because this Constitution of ours provides a method for its amendment. And our Congress that is freely elected by the people provides a means for changing those laws. These are the two factors that, it seems to me, have made the Constitution of the United States a document that is important, not merely for us, but important for every democracy in the world. With the possible exception of Great Britain. They seem to have a security in their unwritten constitution, but I think it is, as Professor Norton said, based in large part on the homogeneity of those people. But aside from Great Britain, I think America's Constitution has been as important for West Germany and perhaps for France and certainly for the democracies of the emerging countries of the world, as it's been for us. And that, I think, is a demonstration of this validity. LEHRER: And yet, Ms. Norton, it's a constitution that was written by 55 white men. Ms. NORTON: It was. LEHRER: Middle aged white men. Ms. NORTON: Who were disciples of the enlightenment, and while creatures of their time, and we see that in flaws in the Constitution, are also visionary in many respects. LEHRER: Were they visionaries, Donald Rumsfeld, or were they just good politicians of their time? Mr. RUMSFELD: It is a question that I think all of us muse over and think about. Because clearly they were courageous. There is no question but that they were courageous. Clearly they had great fears and concerns and a body of experience that led them to do something really very bold. Visionary? You'd have to say yes, in the sense that they fashioned something that was distinctive. Visionary in the sense that they could be certain when they did it that there would only be a couple of dozen amendments, maybe a dozen or so in 200 years after the Billof Rights. No, I think that the vision came in crafting something that permitted diversity. And in so doing helped to weave the fabric of our society, which I would consider to be one of its greatest strengths, our diversity. Ms. NORTON: Jim, I feel compelled to say that this Constitution that we glorify -- particularly the Bill of Rights -- is really a document that came alive only in the past 50 or 60 years, all this wonderful free speech and freedom of religion and right to counsel and freedom from warrantless searches, was in fact not real until the Bill of Rights was applied to the states. And gradually these cases came before the Supreme Court, only within the lifetime of many Americans. We are not talking about a document that was always interpreted the way we now assume it has been. LEHRER: So the people are better than the Constitution? Ms. NORTON: People are a whole lot better than the Constitution, because they could disinterpret -- this Constitution could and has been interpreted in opposite ways from the ways in which it has come to be interpreted only -- not only in the last 50 or 60 years when most of the great cases, defining the Bill of Rights, frankly, began with the Warren Court. LEHRER: America's getting better? Is that it, Ellen Goodman? Ms. GOODMAN: I think that you have to define the 55 white men who were also 55 white propertied men as creatures of their time. That isn't to say that they were intrinsically evil. They were just creatures of their time. And even John Adams and his historic -- his letter writing conversation with his wife. He was a creature of his time. But what they did do was allow for change. They anticipated it, they knew it would come. And they didn't fix, they didn't set, they didn't write a set of rules and say, ''You will abide by my rules. '' These were people who had seen a lot, and knew there was a lot more to come, and they allowed room for all of us to -- without sounding like something out of California -- grow and change. And that is in fact what we did and what the Constitution's done. LEHRER: Is she giving them too much credit? Dr. SILBER: I think, no, I think the last two comments are just revisionist history. I think that these are to reduce the founding fathers to a stature so small that you cannot explain the dramatic influence of the document that they prepared. They have to be seen within their time as Ellen said. But they were exemplary figures, giant figures, in their own time. And the principles that they enunciated established a government quite different from the government that Professor Norton has described. It was a government vastly superior to the government of England or any other European country. It was a country in which people enjoyed freedoms that were not enjoyed by any European nations at that time. And consequently, it was a beacon light for the world, and for free men long before the Warren Court. To suggest that we didn't get serious about human rights, or become remotely civilized until the Warren Court came along, is I just think humorous. The fact is we are more enlightened on some issues today than we were at that time. But that Constitution saved us from the tyranny of the majority, and it saved us from many excesses. LEHRER: Eleanor Holmes Norton? Ms. NORTON: Well, there were terrible excesses in the first part of the 20th century and in the 19th century. This Constitution in fact was interpreted in a civil way on race only with the Warren Court. This Constitution was interpreted to -- for example -- provide that a person charged with a serious offense had the right to counsel only with the Warren Court. The great First Amendment cases come from the Warren Court. Many of the great Freedom of Religion cases come from the Warren Court. They come, of course, from courts beginning in the 20s and 30s. But it is sophistry to contend that the founders wrote down some words, and beginning then, we saw the great Bill of Rights flower. We made the Bill of Rights flower, and without us it would not have happened. LEHRER: We have to leave this happening there. Thank you, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Silber, Ellen Goodman, and Donald Rumsfeld in Chicago. Inseparable? MacNEIL: Finally, our regular Washington essayist, Roger Mudd, has some thoughts on the constitutional separation of church and state.

ROGER MUDD: After 200 years, the church and the state, country and the court, still are struggling with the First Amendment to the Constitution. In particular, scrambling to define the meaning of the first 16 words of the First Amendment. ''Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. '' Over the last 50 years, the Supreme Court has probably given more attention to those religion clauses than any others. And yet we seem no closer to agreement on what the words mean. Is the wall between church and state absolute? Is the state prohibited from doing anything to aid religion, or prevent its exercise? Does no law, as the late Justice Hugo Black insisted, really mean no law at all? Or can the law be occasionally breached? Does it aid a religion to exclude Amish children over the age of 14 from compulsory schooling? Or is it simply protecting the free exercise of their religion? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For the days ahead, we implore your benediction upon us. Amen.

MUDD: Is the law breached when House and Senate begin their daily session with a prayer, or when Ronald Reagan swears on a Bible to uphold the Constitution, ''so help me God. ''? The issues of religious freedom are still before us, because there are no hard and fast answers. Recently, the Sixth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that the Hawkins County School Board in rural East Tennessee could require students to read textbooks that offend their born again Christian beliefs and could expel them if they refused to, without violating their religious rights. The textbooks at issue, published by Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, are used in Hawkins County to teach reading to the second through the eighth grades. The Tennessee parents objected to their children having to read The Wizard of Oz, because of its good witch, and Cinderella, because of its magic. And Macbeth because of its witchcraft, and Hans Christian Andersen because of its fortune telling. The court in Cincinnati said, however, there was no proof that by reading the assigned books, the students had been forced to do or say anything either required or forbidden by their religious convictions. But how could that be proved or disproved? How could three judges in Cincinnati tell seven families in Hawkins County, Tennessee, that their faith had not been violated? Who knows the answer to that question better than the seven families? And yet the Hawkins County School Board can hardly be expected to custom tailor a curriculum to fit the religious outlook and beliefs of every student. But the Tennessee parents and those in a similar case in Alabama claim that the public schools are unconstitutional in teaching their own brand of religion by using godless textbooks. Conservatives and the religious right call it ''secular humanism. '' And they have elevated it to the status of a religion, in which man believes he can cope without reliance on, or guidance from, a divinity. Whatever the merits of the Tennessee and Alabama decisions, it is true that textbook publishers and school boards have developed a bad case of allergy towards traditional religion. Recent studies of 60 social science textbooks reveal that religion, as part of American history, is either grossly ignored or confined to the lunatic fringes of society. One textbook says, ''Martin Luther King, Jr. , was strongly influenced by Thoreau and Gandhi,'' but says nothing of Jesus Christ. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: I just want to do God's will.

MUDD: Another defines pilgrims as ''people who make long trips. '' The trouble with such scaredy cat textbooks is not so much that they are written by secular humanists as it is that they are published by businesses which would rather put out bad history than incur the wrath of the religious left or the religious right. So the Tennessee case is now on the way to the Supreme Court -- which, with or without Judge Robert Bork -- must try again to decide how high and how thick the walls should be between church and state. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday. The Pope spent Day Two of his U. S. visit talking to Jewish and Protestant leaders in Miami and South Carolina. The trade deficit was reported up a record $16. 5 billion in July. And U. S. and Soviet officials accused each other of blocking the ways to an arms agreement. Good night, Robin. MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. Have a nice weekend. We'll be back with the Newshour on Monday night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.