||"THE RIGHT MOST VALUED BY CIVILIZED MAN" 15 any number of acts, but more, since the term denotes a certain quality of association, it immediately invites inquiry into motives, opinions, and thoughts. The all-inclusive nature of the investigation encouraged by the test becomes more evident when it is observed that such association may be in respect to any group designated by the Attorney General as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive. No definitions of these terms are given, and certainly none can be found in common parlance, for they mean all things to all people.14 Justice Douglas highlighted this fact when he commented in reference to the meaning of the term "subversive": It apparently does not mean "totalitarian," "fascist," or "communist" because they are separately listed. Does it mean an organization with socialist ideas? There are some who lump Socialists and Communists together. Does it mean an organization that thinks the lot of some peasants has been improved under Soviet auspices? Does it include an organization that is against the action of the United Nations in Korea? Does it embrace a group which on some issues of international policy aligns itself with the Soviet viewpoint? Does it mean a group which has unwittingly become the tool for Soviet propaganda ? Does it mean one into whose membership some communists have infiltrated? 15 The danger inherent in these ambiguous terms is enhanced by the fact that the Attorney General, though called upon to exercise what has been called the "most arbitrary and far-reaching power ever exercised by a single public official in the history of the United States,"16 was not required to provide a hearing to groups included on his blacklist, and once he had spoken, his word was final as far as loyalty boards were concerned. Before noting how the loyalty program worked out in practice, a few more observations are essential. As initially promulgated, the Executive Order prescribed that an employee should be dismissed if there existed "reasonable grounds for belief" that he was disloyal. In 1951 this standard was altered at the request of the security boards to provide for disqualification in case of "reasonable doubt" of his loyalty.17 Thus, somewhat subtly, the burden of proof was shifted from requiring the government to show the existence of "reasonable grounds" for belief of disloyalty to having the employee carry the burden of showing that he was loyal. This burden was increased even further under a new executive order issued in 1953 which gave the head of a department or agency power to terminate the services of any employee when he deemed it "necessary or advisable in the interests of national security." 18 This same order lumped loyalty, security, and suitability together, thus rendering indistinguishable from 14. For illustrations of the loose manner in which some conceive these terms, see: Gell-horn, Security, Loyalty, and Science 134-174 (1950). 15. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951). 16. Barth, The Loyalty of Free Men 106 (1952). 17. Exec. Order 10241, 16 Fed. Reg. 3690 (Apr. 28, 1951). 18. Exec. Order 10450, 18 Fed. Reg. 2489 (Apr. 27, 1953).