Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

creating an international court providing for a trial without a jury would be unconstitutional if applied to acts of United States citizens within the United States?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I would not want to answer that without studying the particular document that was involved.

Mr. SMITHEY. Excuse me, sir, I do have one further question, and I ask your indulgence for a moment. I take it that you are familiar with articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter?

Attorney General BROWNELL. In a general way.

Mr. SMITHEY. By reason of Missouri v. Holland, does not the Congress now have power to legislate under those sections of the Charter in the entire unlimited domain of civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights, setting aside State Constitutions and laws in that regard?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I cannot comprehend that question. I guess I have been going for 21⁄2 hours, and I am closing down.

Mr. SMITHEY. The reason I raise the question, sir, is because a similar facet of the problem has been discussed very thoroughly by the New York State Bar Association, the Committee on legislation of that bar association, and I wanted your views for the record if we could have them.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Senator BRICKER. Practically all of the precedents which you have stated in your comprehensive statement here was prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Missouri v. Holland, and of course prior to the Steel Seizure case, many of them dating way back to when the concept of treaties was entirely different than the new concept that is contemplated at the present time.

Attorney General BROWNELL. The only thing I would add to that is that I do not think the Constitutional aspect of treaties has changed. The subject matter is broader.

Senator BRICKER. Never before the United Nations was there any thinking that treaties affected the rights of American citizens in domestic affairs?

Attorney General BROWNELL. Of course the first treaty when Great Britain adopted the Constitution.

Senator BRICKER. That was really the reason for the adoption of the supremacy clause so that Great Britain could be assured of the payment of the debt.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Attorney General, we thank you for coming this morning and for your patience in presenting the case.

Attorney General BROWNELL. I assure you I have enjoyed it. Senator DIRKSEN. We have one more witness this morning, Major General Maas, who will testify for the Military Order of the World Wars.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. MELVIN J. MAAS, MAJOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, RETIRED, COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE MILITARY ORDER OF THE WORLD WARS

General MAAS. Good morning, gentlemen.

Senator DIRKSEN. General Maas, it is good to see you, and it is good to have you here this morning.

General MAAS. Thank you, Senator Dirksen.

I will be very brief. The Military Order of the World Wars is composed, as you probably know, of distinguished officers who fought in either of the World Wars. It has over 100 chapters throughout the country, and is composed of very thoughtful men. Many of them were officers in the Regular Establishment, many in the Reserve, and many prominent citizens who accepted and served as emergency officers.

At our convention in October there was unanimously adopted a resolution urging the Congress to amend the Constitution to make certain that no treaty could ever supersede or amend the Constitution, and that any treaty which affected domestic law be subject to approval by both Houses of Congress. During my many years' service in the Congress a number of those years were spent as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and as a result of the experiences as a member of that committee I become convinced that any treaty which affected domestic law or the rights of citizens at home certainly should be subject to consideration by both Houses.

Now if the present provisions of the Constitution do not permit treaties to supersede or amend the Constitution, certainly there is a doubt about it; that it is ambiguous, and we feel that it ought to be clarified. If, on the other hand, and there are many who contend that treaties can supersede the Constitution, then we think that the time has come to prohibit such a possibility or such a practice.

We have in our order considerable apprehension that the time might come during one of these great world crises such as we are in now in which the price of peace might be a treaty to which we would have to agree, which might profoundly affect the rights of our citizens, and yet we can foresee where under great pressure, great urging of our allies, and even pressures at home and without doubt haste being urged upon the Senate and perhaps secrecy being imposed upon them, that we could do an irreparable damage to the country.

We feel that that would be largely prevented if such a treaty required full debate in both Houses. At least then if the treaty were referred to, it would be done with the full knowledge of the people and with the consent of the whole Congress. We do not think that that is a fantastic possibility at all. We also feel that there might very well be a question of some treaty submitted to the Supreme Court at a moment when five might agree instead of only three that the President had inherent powers to do anything in the name of the welfare of the country.

I think we can sum our position up, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that we believe that any treaty which amends, repeals, or enacts domestic legislation should have first before it could be effective action by both Houses of Congress, and we are opposed to any provision which would permit a treaty to supersede the Constitution without constitutional methods of approval.

As to the question as to whether the precedents so far indicate that we have nothing to fear, that so far treaties have not, I think it is apparent that had there not been a change in the national administration, these very treaties you are talking about would have been submitted. Whether they would have been ratified is another thing. It is even possible to conceive that some day there would be another change in the administration, in which case we do not know what it

might be. So we feel in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that the language of the Constitution ought to be clarified at this time because the situation is so different today than it was when that Constitution was adopted. We have had to amend it many times either because the framers of the Constitution could not foresee, or new or entirely different problems arose. We think today an entirely new situation exists which they could not possibly have foreseen or contemplated. So we would like to see the Constitution so worded not only that it can be so understood but so that it cannot be misunderstood.

Senator DIRKSEN. Did the Military Order of the World Wars take any formal action on this matter?

General MAAS. Oh, yes.

Senator DIRKSEN. By convention or otherwise?

General MAAS. At our last national convention in New Orleans, the resolution was unanimously adopted. May I have Mr. King read our resolution?

Senator DIRKSEN. Yes,

Mr. KING (reading):

Be it resolved, That in order to prevent nullification of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America through treaties that we petition the Congress of the United States to amend he Constitution by inserting therein in the appropriate place the following:

"A provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

"A treaty shall become effective as internal law of the United States only through legislation by Congress which it could enact under its delegated powers in the absence of such treaty."

Senator DIRKSEN. General, it is good to see you. We appreciate your coming here to testify and to have the expression of interest of your organization in this very vital matter.

General MAAS. Mr. Chairman, may I file later as part of my statement a historic statement and legal brief?

Senator DIRKSEN. We shall be glad to have it, and I can assure you that it will be published as part of the proceedings of the committee. General MAAS. Thank you.

(The information was not furnished to the committee.)

Senator DIRKSEN. We will conclude at this time until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m., Wednesday, April 8, 1953.)

TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 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, Senator William Langer, chairman, presiding. Present: Senators Langer, Watkins, Butler, and Smith.

Also present: Senator Bricker; Wayne H. Smithey, subcommitee

counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

This is the time set for the appearance of Mr. Wilson. He said he wanted to testify here today. Is Mr. Wilson here or anybody here representing him?

Mr. NASH. I am here, Mr. Chairman, to represent the Secretary of Defense who would be here himself if it were not for the fact that the National Security Council is meeting on a very important matter this morning. He has asked me to appear on his behalf in this very important matter of Senate Joint Resolution 1.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have you here, indeed. Go right ahead.

STATEMENT OF FRANK C. NASH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ACCOMPANIED BY ROGER KENT, GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Mr. NASH. I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, which I believe has been distributed. With your permission, it is not very long, I would like to go through it.

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.

Mr. NASH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like first of all to express my appreciation for this opportunity to give you the views of the Department of Defense with regard to Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Like its predecessor in the previous Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 130, this proposed amendment to the Constitution is of vital interest to the Department of Defense.

You know the important part that treaties, executive agreements, and other international arrangements play in the development of an integrated defense system for the free nations of the world. The organization, supply, and deployment of an effective system of defense for these nations can no longer depend solely on the old-fashioned military alliance. Countries can no longer merely agree to stand together and let it go at that. Effective use of manpower, raw materials,

« ÎnapoiContinuă »