THE JEWISH NEWS

Serving Detroit's Metropolitan Jewish Community
with distinction for four decades.

Editorial and Sales offices at 20300 Civic Center Dr.,
Suite 240, Southfield, Michigan 48076-4138
Telephone (313, 354-6060

PUBLISHER: Charles A. Buerger
ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER: Arthur M. Horwitz
EDITOR EMERITUS: Philip Slomovitz
EDITOR: Gary Rosenblatt
CONSULTANT: Carmi M. Slomovitz
ART DIRECTOR: Kim Muller-Thym
NEWS EDITOR: Alan Hitsky
LOCAL NEWS EDITOR: Heidi Press
STAFF WRITER: David Holzel
LOCAL COLUMNIST: Danny Raskin

OFFICE STAFF:
Lynn Fields
Percy Kaplan
Pauline Max
Marlene Miller
Dharlene Norris
Phyllis Tyner
Mary Lou Weiss
Pauline Weiss
Ellen Wolfe

ACCOUNT EXECUTIVES:
Lauri Biafore
Randy Marcuson
Judi Monblatt
Rick Nessel
Danny Raskin

PRODUCTION:
Donald Cheshure
Cathy Ciccone
Curtis Del6ye
Joy Gardin
Ralph Orme

c 1986 by The Detroit Jewish News (US PS 275-520)
Second Class postage paid at Southfield, Michigan and additional mailing offices.

Subscriptions: 1 year - $21 — 2 years - 539 — Out of State - S23 — Foreign - S35

CANDLELIGHTING AT 7:05 P.M.

VOL. XC, NO. 5

To The Top?

Do statesmen go to the summit because it's there? Whether or not
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev should meet for a summit this
fall is not questionable.
As always, the summit will be there if men want it to be. And, as
always, it has the potential to be fruitful. But whether anything of import
and merit can be achieved in the current tense, acerbic atmosphere
between the two superpowers is highly dubious.
In the last two weeks, U.S.-USSR relations have severely
deteriorated. It all began with the arrest in New York of Gennadi
Zakharov, a Soviet UN employee accused of spying. The Russians
retaliated by charging U.S. reporter Nicholas Daniloff with espionage.
The U.S., insisting that Daniloff had been arrested on trumped-up
charges, then expelled 25 of Mr. Zakharov's colleagues. And finally,
President Reagan took the podium this week at the United Nations'
General Assembly, where he scolded the Soviets on their human rights
record and lectured them on "military adventurism."
Until the Daniloff situation is resolved, it is unlikely that the heads
of the U.S. and Soviet governments will have many nice words to say to
each other — either face-to-face or at a long distance from each other.
Each has boxed himself into a corner where he must save personal face
and national pride. Until the situation mellows, it may be best for the
two men to remain in their respective capitals. A summit held in the
current atmosphere could quickly be reduced to empty posturing.

OP-ED

Does the U.S. Constitution -(
Cover The Flying Camera?

DON McEVOY

F

ormer Watergate special pro-
secutor and current professor
of law Archibald Cox posed a
provocative question at a seminar in
Boston recently. His office is
situated on the top floor of the Har-
vard Law School. The windows are
large, providing a magnificent view
of the surrounding terrain. His desk,
on which he frequently scatters pap-
ers, is quite near those expansive
windows.
It is now possible, he said, for
the technically-advanced cameras in
use by our intelligence agencies to
photograph those documents on his
desk from an aircraft flying over-
head. There was no suggestion that
this had been done, or ever would be
done. It was a hypothetical situation,
suggesting what is possible through
scientific achievement.
There was no question in his
mind that the "original intent" of
the framers of the Constitution was
that his private papers should be
permitted to remain private and not
subject to governmental surveil-
lance. But how could the framers of
the Constitution in 1787 have ever
considered that his privacy might
someday be invaded by a camera in
an airplane in flight?
That may sound like a rather
farfetched fantasy, but it gets to the
heart of the current discussion over
whether the Constitution is to be in-
terpreted in the light of contempor-
ary realities, or whether it is to be
limited to only and precisely what
the Founding Fathers specifically
said.

Don McEvoy is a national officer of the
National Conference of Christians and
Jews in New York.

It is not a new controversy.
Thomas Jefferson championed the
concepts of "strict construction" and
"original intent" as early as 1791 in
opposing the establishment of a fed-
eral bank. He wrote that such a na-
tional corporation was not -among
the powers specially enumerated by
the Constitution." Alexander Hamil-
ton, on the other hand, argued that
the Constitution had "implied as
well as explicit authority."
Jefferson, by the way, searched
the Constitution to find some justifi-

Is it legal for the
Congress to fund the Air
Force? The Constitution
only specifies an Army
and a Navy.

cation for the Louisiana Purchase,
and finding none went right on with
the deal in 1803. This was some-
thing he wanted to do, and that
seems to make all the difference,
then and now.
Is it legal for Congress to fund
the Air Force? The Constitution only
specifies an Army and a Navy.
Can the Federal Communica-
tions Commission assign radio fre-
quencies and television channels?
The Constitution certainly does not
specify any such right.
I'll stand with Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes who said that the
Constitution has ramifications that
"could not have been foreseen com-
pletely by the most gifted of its be-
getters," and with Justice John Mar-
shall who said this great document
is "intended to endure for ages to
come, and, consequently, to be
adapted to the various - crises of
human affairs."

Level Of Tolerance

Rhetoric, posturing, or a sincere effort? Three communities will have
to decide whether conferences such as the one held at the University of
Detroit last week are sincere attempts at understanding or mere
windowdressing (See Page 1).
Some 150 Christians, Muslims and Jews attended the workshops on
"Respect and Reconciliation among the Abrahamic Religions." The
cynicism within us questions the value of such a conference and the true
feelings of the broader publics represented at those meetings.
But that attitude of cynicism is precisely why such conferences must
be held. There are age-old problems between Christians, Muslims and
Jews, problems that will not disappear during a day-long meeting of men
and women of good-will. If the attitudes expressed do not represent the
attitudes of the broader public, then we all must work that much harder
to foster appropriate responses to different views and ideas, to be tolerant
of unshared beliefs or opinions.
Intolerance of others has been the source of mankind's troubles
throughout the millenia. The Interfaith Round Table's meetings at U-D
may not have resolved the differences between the three religious groups
— indeed, it may not have resolved any of the differences. Yet it could
serve as a catalyst for each of us to think about our personal level of
tolerance and openness to the ideas and positions of others.

4FRAELI-Sovt_l s\,
, 4
445INI(IIALIc 414 0ELAVri

P4vs