Natural Law

This morning we're going to talk about dereliction of duty, among those not often accused of it -- Senators Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes, and Congressmen Ben Cardin and Kweisi Mfume. The subject is death by shooting -- of gross indifference to it: Je les accuse!We take notice of a record number of murders last year in Baltimore. Each year approximately 34,000 Americans -- nearly as many as those who die in traffic accidents -- are shot to death. The vast majority of them are not career criminals.

ELLICOTT CITY -- Posted on Kevin Condon's well-manicured and landscaped lawn is a colorful campaign sign supporting the national candidates of the Natural Law Party of the United States of America.Except for a handmade "Vote for Perot" sign posted on mailbox a few doors down, Mr. Condon's poster is the only visible political advertisement in this neighborhood of tree-lined streets and colonial and ranch-style houses.The sign also is the only visible clue to Mr. Condon's candidacy.The self-employed investment manager is running as a write-in candidate for the 6th Congressional District, competing against Republican Roscoe Bartlett and Democrat Thomas Hattery, who have run a highly visible and frequently negative campaign for the seat now held by Beverly D. Byron.

The Senate debate over the nomination of Clarence Thomas for the U.S. Supreme Court no doubt will once more bring about more discussion of "natural law" -- a concept which Judge Thomas once fervently embraced, but which he hastily abandoned during his recent "confirmation conversion."The press analysts and commentators, usually never at a loss for words, have expressed glassy-eyed mystification over the meaning of "natural law." In reality, the issue isn't complicated at all; what's complicated is confronting the dilemmas implicit in natural law. In the simplest terms, that means balancing duty against conscience when the two come into conflict.

IF THEY'RE HONEST with themselves, both supporters and opponents of Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court will admit that Thomas' confirmation hearings were less than enlightening.For the most part, Democratic senators asked loaded questions designed to get Thomas to say something that would hurt his chances. For the most part, Republican senators asked softball questions designed to make Thomas look good.And, for the most part, Thomas avoided answering all of them, walking away from his own past and statements and reinventing himself to such a degree that no one is now sure who he is.The hearings were particularly disappointing when they focused "natural law" and "natural rights."

JUDGE THOMAS, in a speech you delivered in 1987, you said, and I quote: 'I believe it is the responsibility of every decentperson to wear clean underwear, so that in the event of an accident, you will not be embarrassed in front of the nurses in the emergency room.' Is that quotation accurate?""Yes, senator, it is.""Now, you went on to say that if a person does not have an automatic washer and dryer, that person should wash his or her underwear by hand. And if that person does not have hot water, he or she should make do with cold water.

Washington -- EVER HAVE one of those days when your car won't start, the dog throws up on your best suit, the bank bounces your check, and a co-worker you dislike gets a raise?That's the kind of day the U.S. Senate had Monday.The world's most exclusive debating society got buffaloed by Ollie North, Clarence Thomas and Robert Gates. At least the senators have an alibi.They can blame it on television.Sure, politicians thrive on the tube. They jostle for camera position like NFL defensive ends.

LISTENING TO Judge Clarence Thomas talk so movingly about the old-fashioned values he learned from his hard-working grandfather, I thought back to my childhood and my grandfather and some of the things he taught me.I couldn't have been more than 5 or 6 years old when he swiveled on his bar stool and said: "Listen to me. Never trust a Russian."Because of my youth, I didn't know what a Russian was. So I asked him.He said: "A Russian is no good."I asked him why a Russian was no good.He said: "Never mind.

PICTURE A columnist appearing before an audience of readers. Someone asks a question about an issue -- capital punishment, say, or abortion, or busing.The columnist replies, "It would be improper for me to discuss that because I plan to write about it in the future."Now, there's considerable difference between columnists and justices of the Supreme Court, the greatest being that the latter are infinitely more important, despite what the former sometimes seem to believe.The similarity is that the trade-secret response for either is insulting to the audience.

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas acted swiftly yesterday to move well away from some of his harshest criticism of modern court rulings on individual rights -- including abortion -- to try to defuse critics' claims that he is a constitutional radical.Without saying that he had been wrong in the past, Judge Thomas over and over sought to show to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the theory he has often used to assail the Supreme Court bitterly -- his controversial belief in "natural law" -- was never intended for that purpose.

Chevy Chase. -- Before the critics of Judge Thomas positively faint away at the thought of ''natural law'' jurisprudence, it might be useful to recall the thoughts of some recent justices on the subject.Exhibit A is a speech given by former Justice William Brennan in 1980 at the dedication of the University of Maryland Law School library, named in honor of Justice Thurgood Marshall. (Justice Marshall had declined to attend the ceremony on the very reasonable grounds that the same law school had denied him admission 50 years earlier.