Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, the Honorable Everett Dirksen presiding. Present: Senators Langer (chairman), Dirksen (presiding), Butler of Maryland, and Kefauver.

Also present: Senator Watkins.

Wayne H. Smithey, subcommittee counsel.

Senator DIRKSEN (presiding). The committee will come to order. As the first order of business this morning we will insert in the record of the hearings statements that will be filed or are on file now by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Sojourners, the National Foreign Trade Council, Inc., and the Air Transport Association. In addition to those, another statement will be filed at a later date by the National Association of Manufacturers, so that we can allow that statement to go in the record as of now and take it when it has been presented. (The statements above referred to are as follows:)

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
Washington, D. C.

Re amendment to the Constitution relative to abrogation of individual rights by international treaties

Hon. WILLIAM LANGER,

Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR LANGER: We appreciate the opportunity afforded the American Farm Bureau Federation to present this statement regarding this important matter before you, in respect to amending the Constitution.

The American Farm Bureau Federation is deeply concerned with the issue of maintaining the rights of individuals and of the States as guaranteed by our Constitution. The official voting delegates of the 47 member States and Puerto Rico, representing 1,500,000 farm families (the equivalent of 6,500,000 individuals in the program), adopted the following resolution at the 1952 annual convention held in Seattle, Wash., in December 1952.

(a) "Through the Constitution, our forefathers founded a great government, designed to secure the God-given blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. Their objective was to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property. With wisdom and foresight, a government with built-in checks and balances was developed. This was based on a legislative, executive, and judicial division of authority. The danger of unbridled centralized power was wisely foreseen, and power of government was diffused among the States and the people, not by default but by design.

To insure control by the people, the Bill of Rights provided that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

Thus, with freedom protected, the initiative of individuals has been encouraged, with the result that human and natural resources have been combined to produce goods and services for all.

Today we have more widespread educational and religious opportunity and more and better housing, food, and clothing than in any other place on earth. We work fewer hours for our goods, receive better goods in return, and have more services available for all than is possible under any other system of government. Under no other system has man achieved such universally high standards of living. Nowhere has the individual achieved greater dignity.

Every citizen has a great challenge before him to work vigorously and constantly to maintain these freedoms and to assist all mankind to march forward to higher standards of living.

These official voting delegates further stated in resolution that

"Property rights cannot be taken away without infringing on human rights" and further,

"That the Constitution is the basic law of the land, and that its interpretation should be consistent with the intent of its authors."

Our American Farm Bureau Federation further states:

"We will continue to stand up for our beliefs in true Americanism, unequivocably support the Constitution of the United States and, individually and as a group, resist any continued drift toward socialism. Furthermore, we will reject communism wherever and in whatever form it may be found, be it in schools, churches, clubs, farm groups, or other associations, or Government agencies, by every means at our command within constitutional limitations."

Our members realize that international arrangements are essential as a part of our basic objective to promote world peace and well-being. Furthermore, they know that our own best long-term interests may be furthered with economic, political, and military arrangements with our friends in the free world.

We recognize this in asserting that America must assume her rightful role of leadership in the maintenance of freedom and peace. Our concern for good foreign relations is further shown in such resolutions as:

"Recommending that a bipartisan commission of the Congress be established to study, report, and where appropriate, recommend legislation to reconcile our domestic and foreign objectives."

Our further concern for maintaining and promoting good foreign relations is indicated by our supporting in principle:

(a) The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.

(b) The International Wheat Agreement. (c) The Mutual Security Program.

(d) The technical-assistance program.

However, we believe that international arrangements and our desire for close collaboration with our friends need not be achieved at the expense of our own individual liberties, nor in a way to nullify our Constitution and basic laws.

Therefore, we believe the efforts of Congress to permit the people in the States to express themselves through amendment to our Constitution is entirely proper. The American Farm Bureau Federation therefore in resolution states: "We urge an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that no treaty shall ever take precedence over our laws and Constitution. We further recommend that the American Farm Bureau Federation take such action as necessary to stop ratification of any treaty now pending before the United States Senate, and further to secure the termination of any treaty previously ratified where there is in such treaty the possibility of infringement on the rights and privileges of citizens in this country under the Constitution of the United States."

We are certain that after hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 1 and Senate Joint Resolution 2, the best features of the several bills before the several committees of the Congress bearing on the issue will be incorporated into the proper type of legislation designed to achieve the desired goals most effectively.

We believe this can be done without impairing our relations with the essential international organizations or the vital treaties with our friends.

We respectfully request that this statement become part of the official record of these hearings and be properly considered in the committee deliberations.

Very truly yours,

JOHN C. LYNN, Legislative Director.

STATEMENT BY IRVING FERMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, IN OPPOSITION TO SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1

My name is Irving Ferman. I speak in behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, as director of its Washington, D. C. office. The union is a private, nonpartisan organization interested in promoting the Bill of Rights. I am also a member of the bar of the State of Louisiana.

Senate Joint Resolution 1 presupposes an inadequacy in our Constitution. It rests on the fear that article VI, making all treaties the supreme law of the land, is a trojan horse which can destroy the constitutional relationship of individual to our Government, both Federal and State. It rests on the fear that treaty law, becoming recognizably more complex, and enveloping in its scope, can nullify internal law, both State and Federal.

A contemplated change in our constitutional framework, such as is sought by the resolution before us, deserves the most careful study and attention of our people. Our Constitution has worked remarkably well for over a century and a half. It is the document which today gives philosophic breath to the cause of the free world in its struggle against Communist totalitarianism. It is our greatest source of national security.

Our constitutional treaty-making power was framed not without the most careful consideration, not without sharpening debate, and further, not without mind of the very international problems facing our democracy today.

Historical data clearly reveal that the framers never intended to equate the treaty power of this Nation with the domestic power of Congress. The constitutional plan of Senate ratification in section 2 of article II represents a fine balance of responsible check over the Executive on one hand, and the need for promoting an expedient modus operandi in our dealings with foreign nations. This framework of power must be retained.

Section 1 of the resolution provides:

"A provision of a treaty which denies or abridges any right enumerated in this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect."

It is difficult to see significant meaning in this section in view of the existing law under which treaties cannot abridge rights endowed by the Constitution Mr. Justice Field in Geofroy v. Riggs (133 U. S 258, 267), noted:

"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the Government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the Government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the Government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent. But with these exceptions, it is not perceived that there is any limit to the questions which can be adjusted touching any matter which is properly the subject of negotiation with a foreign country."

And indeed, despite disagreement among members of the bar, it does seem that Mr. Justice Holmes in Missouri v. Holland (252 U. S. 416), affirmed the Riggs case when he held that the migratory bird treaty was valid because it "did not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution." The concern of the resolution supporters of the United Nations Covenant on Human Rights limiting the Bill of Rights is unwarranted. It should be pointed out that the provisions in the U. N. Covenant on Human Rights restricts its application where it runs counter to Federal or State law. It reads in article 18 as follows:

"Nothing in this covenant may be interpreted as limiting or derogating from any of the rights and freedoms which may be guaranteed, under the laws of any contracting state or any conventions to which it is a party."

With specific reference to Federal and State law, the covenant states:

"(a) With respect to any articles of this covenant which the Federal Government regards as wholly or in part appropriate for Federal action, the obligations of the Federal Government shall to this extent be the same as those of parties which are not Federal States; (b) in respect of articles which the Federal Government regards as appropriate under its constitutional system, in whole or in part, for action by the constituent states, provinces, or cantons, the Federal Government shall bring such provisions with favorable recommendation to the notice of the appropriate authorities of the states, provinces, or cantons at the earliest possible moment."

This expressed intent of the covenant has been so construed by the Supreme Court of the State of California on April 17, 1952, in Fujii v. State of California. Chief Justice Gibson, in his opinion, said:

"The provisions in the Charter pledging cooperation in promoting observance of the fundamental freedoms lack the mandatory quality and definiteness which would indicate an intent to create justifiable rights in private persons immediately upon ratification. Instead, they are framed as a promise of future action by the member nations. Secretary of State Stettinius, chairman of the United States delegation at the San Francisco Conference where the Charter was drafted, stated in his report to President Truman that article 56 'pledges the various countries to cooperate with the Organization by joint and separate action in the achievement of the economic and social objectives of the Organization without infringing upon their rights to order their national affairs according to their own best ability, in their own way, and in accordance with their own political and economic institutions and processes.'

"The humane and enlightened objectives of the United Nations Charter are, of course, entitled to respectful consideration by the courts and legislatures of every member nation, since that document expresses the universal desire of thinking men for peace and for equality of rights and opportunities. The Charter represents a moral commitment of foremost importance, and we must not permit the spirit of our pledge to be compromised or disparaged in either our domestic or foreign affairs. We are satisfied, however, that the Charter provisions relied on by plaintiff were not intended to supersede existing domestic legislation, and we cannot hold that they operate to invalidate the alien land law."

The American Civil Liberties Union submits that under existing law treaties are subordinate to all provisions of the Federal Constitution and to constitutional Federal laws enacted subsequently. In addition, the Senate has power to safeguard State constitutions or laws or existing Federal laws by prescribing reservations prior to ratifying treaties. Subject to these existing restrictions, the Government of the United States should continue to have the power to enlarge the rights of American citizens at home, by making treaties or executive agreements as well as otherwise, and to participate in the development of universal standards of human rights, including the rights of American citizens abroad.

The opposition to the U. N. Covenant on Human Rights purportedly rests on the fear that the rights granted therein are too narrow, not as wide as those granted by our Constitution. We assume that those who oppose the covenant on this ground would support it were the covenant to give to citizens of other countries liberties coextensive with those we have at home. But this could never be done under the proposed constitutional amendment. It would thus foreclose the possibility of the United States participating in the developing of universal standards of human rights which all of us in this country would want people abroad to have.

It would foreclose the possibility of an international covenant, for example, granting the citizens of Soviet Russia the same civil liberties as we have here. It would be fanciful to maintain that such an agreement could be worked out today in the fact of the contempt that Communist totalitarianism shows for civil liberties, but it is conceivable at some future remote date. It seems to us that a proposed constitutional amendment to tie the hands of the Government in any cooperative efforts to bring freedom to the people behind the Iron Curtain does a definite disservice to democracy.

*

Section 3 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 reads:

"A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress."

The enactment of this section would negate the effect of article VI of our Constitution. To have internal effect, a treaty would have to be approved by (1) the President, (2) a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and (3) a majority vote of the House and Senate.

The American Civil Liberties Union stands opposed to the passage of this section because it would make unworkable any attempt on our part to extend the spirit of our Bill of Rights internationally in the fight against Communist totalitarianism.

We do not wish to take up the committee's time further in a specific discussion of the remaining sections of the proposed resolution. We are naturally opposed to them for the same reasons we are opposed to sections 1 and 3.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »