Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Hylton, which you cited in the brief you presented here, expressed doubts in that opinion as to his power to declare a treaty void. A similar statement has been made by a circuit court of appeals in the case of U. S. v. Reid and in the case of Oetjen v. Central Leather Company, the court said:

The conduct of the foreign relations of our Government as commited by the Constitution to the executive and legislative, the political departments of the Government, and the propriety of what might be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.

Then in the U. S. v. Curtiss-Wright case, you have the statement by the Supreme Court as follows:

The investment of the Federal Government with powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants in the Constitution.

In addition to all these statements of the Supreme Court, you have the statement of Chief Justice Hughes which was quoted to you by Senator Watkins. Now in the light of those statements, sir, do you think that the Supreme Court has the right to declare a treaty unconstitutional?

Attorney General BROWNELL. Yes; I do.

Mr. SMITHEY. Now on page 22 of your statement you seem to infer that you viewed section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 as having retroactive effect. Did you mean to infer that it did have retroactive effect in your mind?

Attorney General BROWNELL. It certainly is not clear whether it does or not, and therefore the problem should be considered.

Mr. SMITHEY. Do you think it is retroactive?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I guess it would take the United States Supreme Court to decide that.

Mr. SMITHEY. You have no opinion?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I think if it is not intended to be read retroactively, it would be better to state it in the language rather than to leave it out.

Mr. SMITHEY. On page 22 again you refer to the domestic jurisdiction clause and refer to the protection that the United States has by virtue of the fact that that is in a treaty.

Attorney General BROWNELL. As being one method by which the same results could be accomplished without the necessity of a constitutional amendment.

Mr. SMITHEY. That is right. Now in that connection, sir, would you tell the committee just what forum determines that under the charter?

Attorney General BROWNELL. So far as the people of this country are concerned, it would be the Senate of the United States.

Mr. SMITHEY. The Senate of the United States, not the Supreme Court?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I would say primarily the Senate of the United States. If they acted in language that was unambiguous as they undoubtedly would I would say there would be no question

about it.

Mr. SMITHEY. You indicated in your statement your disagreement with the international draft statute on the criminal court. I would like to ask you this question along that line, and it is the final question that I have, sir. Do you agree with Judge Parker that a treaty

eating an international court providing for a trial without a jury ould be unconstitutional if applied to acts of United States citizens thin the United States?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I would not want to answer that thout studying the particular document that was involved.

Mr. SMITHEY. Excuse me, sir, I do have one further question, and ask your indulgence for a moment. I take it that you are familiar th 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 Coness now have power to legislate under those sections of the Charter the entire unlimited domain of civil, political, social, economic, d cultural rights, setting aside State Constitutions and laws in that gard?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I cannot comprehend that question. 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 simir facet of the problem has been discussed very thoroughly by the ew York State Bar Association, the Committee on legislation of that r association, and I wanted your views for the record if we could ve them.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

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

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

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

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

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

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Attorney General, we thank you for coming is 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 eneral Maas, who will testify for the Military Order of the World

ars.

ATEMENT 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 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 admin tration, these very treaties you are talking about would have been submitted. Whether they would have been ratified is another thig 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

ight be. So we feel in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that the language f the Constitution ought to be clarified at this time because the sitution is so different today than it was when that Constitution was dopted. We have had to amend it many times either because the ramers of the Constitution could not foresee, or new or entirely diferent problems arose. We think today an entirely new situation xists which they could not possibly have foreseen or contemplated. o we would like to see the Constitution so worded not only that it an be so understood but so that it cannot be misunderstood. Senator DIRKSEN. Did the Military Order of the World Wars take my 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, he resolution was unanimously adopted. May I have Mr. King read ur resolution?

Senator DIRKSEN. Yes.

Mr. KING (reading):

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

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

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

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

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

Senator DIRKSEN. We shall be glad to have it, and I can assure you at 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 orning at 10 o'clock.

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

« ÎnapoiContinuă »