We seek power as individuals and we seek it collectively, although collective success inevitably leads to the rise of individual desire within the successful group.

Democracy is the best form of government.

Our two-party system is the best method yet devised for running a democracy. Yet, democracy and the two-party system are found to be grievously wanting in some respects.

Within months after an elected President takes office he is under attack not only by those who never wanted him to be President in the first place but also by those who may have voted for him but find themselves neglected in the distribution of the political spoils, or upset by their inability to make decisions for him which coincide wth their own philosophies.

An internal warfare develops, with the President on one side and the dissident and disappointed voters on the other.

And throughout the verbal bombing and incendiary malignments fired at him, the President is expected to maintain the domestic economy, defend the security of the United States, raise the standard of living, and improve the image of our country in world affairs.

A major purpose behind the attacks on the President is to put him in such a bad light that he cannot hope for re-election even if he desires to run for a second term.

President Johnson undoubtedly decided against trying for relection in 1968 largely because of the intensity and apparent success of the attacks made upon him.

Certainly, he made mistakes of judgment which proved to be costly; yet it is possible indeed quite probable that any other President elected at the time he was would have made the same errors in the belief that stability could be achieved in Southeast Asia by the greater involvement of American military strength on a temporary basis.

President Johnson was assailed full force for his mistakes, but given very little credit for the good he did.

When Richard Nixon became President 14 months ago, he was confronted with almost unprecedented problems.

Over a million American military men were stationed overseas in positions best calculated to prevent the spread of what was called a "monolithic Communist conspiracy."

About 540,000 of these troops were in the small, war-ravaged country of South Vietnam.

At home, galloping inflation and a rapidly increasing crime rate—both stepchildren of war-were running rampant.

The new President was promptly met by new demands-the most insistent, the most vociferous, and the best organized coming from those who had opposed his election.

They insisted that the troops be withdraw from South Vietnam almost immediately, regardless of consequences to the native population.

Crime and inflation were to be controlled without delay.

Domestic programs affecting health, education, and welfare were to be expanded many times over and far beyond the means of our democratic Nations to sustain.

Of course, no President could possibly meet such demands.

He has now withdrawn just over 100,000 military personnel from Vietnam in the last months, and the withdrawal continues on schedule.

He has improved our standing with many other countries and has repaired our prestige where it had been damaged.

Inflation and crime are not yet under control and will not be so long as we are involved in foreign war to the extent we are now.

President Nixon has made mistakes, but on the whole his record to date may be given a high passing mark.

Like his predecessors, he wants to be the best President we ever had. With a congressional election coming up on November 3 this year and a presidential election 2 years later, his present righ rating has only intensified the attacks on him and his decisions both from political aspirants of the opposition party and disillusioned and angry disidents within his own.

They make the work of his office more difficult.

Not only are impossible demands made upon the executive branch but by more indirect means many undertake to lessen the President's standing both at home and abroad.

A current example of this will be found in the Carswell case now before the Senate.

I do not know Judge Carswell and I do not know for sure how good a Justice of our Supreme Court he would make; neither do those who so enthusiastically condemn him.

Certainly, if the same microscopic scrutiny had been applied to all nominees to this Court over the last 30 years as is being applied to Mr. Carswell, I fear that the Court might have a quite different complexion today.

In fact, we might not have any sitting Justices at all if each one had to qualify under the strict requirements for brilliance and purity demanded by Judge Carswell's critics.

And yet, strangely enough, most of those Justices who for one reason or another might have been disqualified have turned out to be very good Judges. For the last 2 weeks, Members of the Senate have received hundreds or even thousands of letters and telegrams urging the rejection of Judge Carswell's nomination.

I am quite sure that many of these protesters did not know much of anything about Judge Carswell until they were advised by organization leaders to stir up all the opposition possible.

Some others were doubtless prompted to register their opposition by unfavorable and in some instances misleading publicity.

They did not know Carswell, but they did know President Nixon, and for most of them he is their No. 1 target.

I doubt that many of them voted for him in 1968, and I doubt that many · would vote for his reelection.

I am not making this statement today as criticism of those who are simply following practices well established by tradition or of those who sincerely believe that each appointment to public office, especially to the judiciary, should be as wise as Solomon and as pure as Caesar's wife.

A loyal opposition is fully warranted so long as, in its zeal, it does not weaken those qualities that have made our Nation great.

I am making this statement to call attention to the indisputable fact that no President can give his best to the Nation or maintain our prestige in the world so long as he is constantly being fired upon by those whose principal purpose is to keep him from being reelected.

On January 17, 1969, I joined the Senator from Montana (Mr. Mansfield) in introducing Senate Joint Resolution 21, proposing an amendment to the Constitution limiting the President to a single term of 6 years.

The one-term limitation has worked well in other countries.

It permits the President to devote all his time and efforts to the service of his country.

This constitutional amendment would go far in discouraging would-be successors to the office from wasting their time in harassing him or trumping up unwarranted charges or impeding his work because he could not run against any of them anyway.

Mr. President, I hope that this Congress will seriously consider the amendment proposed by Senator Mansfield and myself.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. AIKEN. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Let me say that I am delighted that the dean of the Republicans has indicated his strong support for the resolution which he and I introduced some months ago. We think it is a way to allow any President-regardless of party-to be himself and not to be subject to political harassments. It is a way that allows the President to assume his office with one purpose in mind—to do a good job, regardless of the consequences, and then to depart.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator from Vermont has expired.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Vermont may have 5 additional minutes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. May I express the hope that, on the basis of the speech made by the distinguished Senator, the appropriate subcommittee within the Committee on the Judiciary would undertake hearings on this matter as soon as possible. Senator Aiken's most positive statement has placed this issue in its proper context indicating that it is aimed at the Presidency--at the office itself— and is not concerned so much with the man.

Mr. President, I was impressed by what the distinguished Senator from Vermont had to say on page 2 of his speech:

"With this overweening belief in mind, I have to the best of my ability tried to help each-"

That is, each President

"to serve his country well-regardless of Party.

Each President I have known has, to a great extent, been at the mercy of the times during which he served.

Each has had to establish and maintain his credibility in the field of international politics, with varying degrees of success.

And upon the success of the President in making the right decisions and in maintaining the respect of the world rested the prestige of our Nation and of you and me in the eyes of the world."

All I want to say is that the distinguished Senator has certainly lived up to those words in his many years of service in this body.

I only hope that as a Senator from the State of Montana and as majority leader, I can do almost as well as the distinguished Senator from Vermont, who has just addressed us.

Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator from Montana. It has been a privilege to be associated with him on certain proposed constitutional amendments. I still feel they are all amendments which should be approved by Congress.

Since I have enough time remaining, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I wish to indicate my great appreciation for another very significant statement made by the dean of Republicans in the U.S. Senate. It is a statement which is very important. Of course, it reaches far beyond the matter of the nomination of Judge Carswell. However, I am very conscious of the fact that the distinguished Senator from Vermont by his statement has placed the opposition to the nomination of Judge Carswell in proper perspective.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield?

Mr. AIKEN. I yield.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I join the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Michigan in complimenting the Senator from Vermont upon his remarks today. The Senator from Vermont has called our attention to some of the major problems confronting our country and has offered a solution. I wholeheartedly support the proposal that he and the Senator from Montana have made, that there be a constitutional amendment to limit the term of the President to 6 years. I think that would be the most constructive step that could be taken toward a better government, so far as Congress is concerned. I join in expressing the hope that some consideration will be given to that resolution.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Montana is agreeable, we might add the name of the Senator from Delaware as a cosponsor of this constitutional amendment.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I would be delighted to have the Senator from Delaware join us.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I would be pleased to join as a cosponsor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

REXFORD G. TUGWELL'S PROPOSED NEW CONSTITUTION

GENERAL STRUCTURE

The United Republics of America, a nation divided into not more than 20 republics, with each republic containing no less than 5 per cent of the nation's population. Powers similar to the states' powers are granted to the republics, whose governments may be removed by the national Senate for corruption or ineptitude.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH

President elected to one nine-year term, unless rejected by the electorate after three years. With no responsibility over administrative agencies, he could concentrate his efforts on foreign affairs and domestic policy.

Two Vice Presidents-The President would designate one to supervise general affairs, the other to supervise internal affairs. The President would also say which was first in succession.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Senate Would serve for life. Composed of former Presidents, Vice Presidents and other former high public officials, plus some members selected by the President, judiciary and House of Representatives. Would have power to object to any measure approved by the House except annual budget.

House of Representatives-Similar to the present House, except that it would have 400 members, with 100 elected at-large and the rest from districts. Also the seniority system of selecting committee chairman would be eliminated and no chairman could serve longer than six years.

JUDICIAL

Supreme Court is abolished and its powers divided among a high court of the Constitution, a high court of appeal, and special courts of claims, rights and duties, administrative settlements, tax appeals and arbitration review. The Principal Justice, replacing the office of Chief Justice, would be chosen for a term of 12 years. The high court of the Constitution must advise the Senate on the consittutionality of questionable measures passed by the House. If the high court declares a law unconstitutional, the Senate may overrule the decision.

ELECTIONS

An electoral branch would oversee the organizations of parties, nominations and elections, campaign funds, codes of fair practices, and other procedures for the selection of officials.

PLANNING

Planning board, appointed by President, would prepare six-year and 12-year development plans, as well as annual budgets.

REGULATORY AGENCIES

All of the agencies would be appointed by a regulator, who would head up a national board to make regulations.

BILL OF RIGHTS

There is no Bill of Rights, but the fundamental safeguards included in various portions are virtually identical to the present ones. Notable differences : no right to trial by jury; there is no right to bear arms, but there is a prohibition against unlicensed possession of lethal weapons; and there is a guarantee of a right to privacy, which is not mentioned in the United States Constitution.

AMENDMENTS

Proposed by council of top judges, aproved by President and Senate, ratified by majority in national election. After five Presidential terms, entire constitution may be rewritten and submitted to ratification by majority in national election.

CONSTITUTION BUILDER: REXFORD GUY TUGWELL

(By Felix Belair, Jr.)

Like redecorating a cathedral, putting together a new Constitution for the United States is no job for a timid soul. And before taking on the assignment a man had better have a pretty good idea of where he is going. In these particulars, nobody need have any doubts about the qualifications of Rexford Guy Tugwell. Cherished traditions and institutions that no longer serve the needs of modern society are to him like so many totem poles that must be pulled down as impediments to progress.

It was presumably this philosophy that moved Mr. Tugwell to draft, in consultation with the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, a new charter for modern America.

Just where his model constitution might take the nation is debatable. But Mr. Tugwell's sense of direction toward a collectivist society-in which government planning would anticipate the legitimate needs of the people and harness corporate power to the same ends-have remained unchanged for half a century. When he accepted a senior fellowship at the center in Santa Barbara, Calif., in 1966, Mr. Tugwell made it clear that his preoccupation would be the drafting of a model constitution. He has been at it ever since.

The basis of Mr. Tugwell's political theorem is his conviction that traditional representative democracy is not only compatible with government planning but also may not survive without it. "Unrestricted individual competition is the death, not the life, of trade," he says.

MEMBER OF "BRAIN TRUST"

Long before Mr. Tugwell became a member of President Roosevelt's "Brain Trust“ and among the most vilified public officials of his time, he had parted company with the classical economists of the free market forces and with antimonopoly progressivism.

Rex Tugwell, who is 79 years old, was 42 when he became a member of the Roosevelt Administration after having taught economics at Columbia University in New York. Different people reacted in different ways to the Tugwell of those days. The young government lawyers and economists held him in an esteem amounting to reverence. He had an engaging smile and laughed easily, whatever the occasion.

To some, particularly those in Congress this gave him a cunning aspect. There had to be something wrong, they thought, with an Under Secretary of Agriculture who had never got manure on his shoes and who looked so typically American but was forever finding fault with the nation's most cherished notions and institutions.

While pilloried as a strange amalgam of Communist, Fascist and a menace to the liberties of the American people, “Rex the Red,” as he was dubbed by some editorialists, consistently and specifically rejected and denounced the enforced regimentation of doctrinaire socialism and its political opposite.

Apart from "the vast human sufferings,” the "repression, spying and violence" of the Communist and Fascist regimes that repelled him, Mr. Tugwell was deeply committed to experimentalism as a social method. He still is, and that is largely what his model constitution is all about.

Mr. Tugwell was born July 10, 1891, in Sinclairville. N.Y., a small upstate town 12 miles from Lake Erie. He graduated from Masten Park High School in Buffalo and holds a bachelor's degree, a master's and a Ph. D. from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Finance and Commerce.

"Ours is a society struggling to become cooperative," he wrote in the nineteentwenties. "All the technical forces tend to produce a collective society; all the thwarted motives of men cry aloud for it. But the way is blocked by ideologies of the past, buttressed by those who have grown strong in its favors.”

NEW DEAL ARCHITECT

The man often described as the chief architect of the New Deal is married to the former Grace Falke, who was his secretary during his tenure at the Agriculture Department. They have two children, Tyler and Franklin. He was previously married to Florence E. Arnold and had two children, Tanis and Marcia, before his first marriage ended in divorce.

Now white-haired and given to pacing himself, Mr. Tugwell still begins work in his study at 7 in the morning and is in the conference room at the California center by midmorning for discussions with his colleagues. Behind him now is a career of government service that he left in 1938 to head the planning department of New York City's Planning Commission. In 1938, President Roosevelt called him back to become Governor of Puerto Rico.

Nothing may come of his attempted revision of the United States Constitution. But if he is successful, he can thank his firm belief that the existing charter has outgrown the needs of America in 1970.

$2-528-72- -15