v. Holland. We want constitutional law restored to what it was before Missouri v. Holland and what that set aside.

Senator SMITH. I think that is all academic, myself. I think we have the situation we want to meet today, which Senator Bricker has so well outlined in his opening statement.

Senator WATKINS. You mean what Mr. Schweppe is saying is academic?

Senator SMITH. No, not all of it. But I say we go back to what Jefferson said, and we are bound by what Jefferson said.

Mr. SCHWEPPE. I make one more point, and then I will conclude, and I think it will interest you, because Jefferson comes into this argument very briefly, too.

Under the Missouri v. Holland doctrine, which the Attorney General and the Secretary of State say must not be disturbed by all means, because that is wonderful and we need it: Of course, there isn't any question that Congress can pass implementing legislation under any treaty, even though it wouldn't have the power to legislate in the absence of a treaty.

Senator SMITH. It was a Democratic Solicitor General that advanced the reasoning that led up to Missouri v. Holland, was it not? Mr. SCHWEPPE. Yes.

Senator WATKINS. You mean a Democrat was responsible for getting us that kind of decision?

Senator BRICKER. It was a Democratic judge that wrote the opinion. Mr. SCHWEPPE. Let me make this point. I think you will like the point. Under articles 55 and 56, the human rights provisions, higher standards of living, fuller employment, conditions of economic and social progress, universal respect for fundamental human rights, and so on-now, as far as I can gather, that is the whole gamut of human activity. Where do the lovers of Missouri against Holland end up? They say, under that, Congress can implement any treaty, even though in the absence of the treaty it would not have the power. Now, I say that articles 55 and 56 encompass the whole gamut of human activity. And under Missouri against Holland-and here is where they end up-the Federal Government, by the doctrine of Missouri against Holland, plus the United Nations Charter, articles 55 and 56, has now become a Government of unlimited powers. It is a Government of completely unlimited powers. Hereafter, when the Supreme Court tests a statute in any field, they will say first, is it valid under the Constitution, second, is it within the purview of these provisions of the United Nations Charter? And if it is under the doctrine of Missouri against Holland, it is valid. So I say that under that we have come to a Government of unlimited powers, and I bring you back to Jefferson, who says: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we have no Constitution."

Senator WATKINS. I think that is one of the truest things he ever said. If they can do it by treaty, the rest of it is out.

Mr. SCHWEPPE. That is where the lovers of Missouri against Holland come out. I think that will conclude my argument. The rest of it is in the paper. I merely wanted to highlight some of these points both on the necessary and proper clause and on Missouri against Holland and on the constitutional documents. We want that constitutional opinion restored that Jefferson and others of the Founding Fathers adhered to.

Senator BRICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say the same thing to Al that I did to Frank Holman :

You have done a great job on this. You are a great patriot, a great lawyer, a great teacher, and had it not been for your committee and Its activities and its work, along with Mr. Holman and the house of delegates of the American Bar, we never could have alerted the American people to the seriousness of the situation which faces them today in treaty law.

This amendment, as I look at it, is for the express purpose of preserving the Constitution and building a Bill of Rights against treaty law as well as against the acts of Congress. It is necessary in view of present trends, and I just feel that the American people are being served by the American Bar in a way that they have never been served before.

In bringing this to your attention and helping to enlighten Congress as to our responsibilities to carry out our oaths, to preserve the Coustitution of the United States against the trend which has become very active and very powerful and at times almost violent, if you follow some of the briefs that have been filed under the auspices of the United Nations, and they are in the record here. So the everlasting gratitude of myself and of all those who join with me in this committee and of the American people can be given to you and to your committee.

Senator WATKINS. I do not think I could improve on what Senator Bricker has said, but I would like to add these words: More power to you, Mr. Schweppe.

Mr. SCHWEPPE. Well, Senator Smith, I think one tribute deserves another, and I would like to say this for the record:

We of the American Bar Association committee are most grateful to Senator Bricker for having, where time is of considerable essence. brought this issue up in the United States Senate at a time when, because of the nature of our deliberations, we were not yet ready to come forward with a text. I think Senator Bricker did an outstanding patriotic service in bringing this question before the public eye. We know that without the zealous interest of a Member of the Senate of the United States it would be impossible to take a question within a short period of 2 years and bring it from obscurity to one of the most talked about questions in the United States.

I want to say further that the Secretary of State stated here the other day that the activities of Senator Bricker and others who support that same viewpoint had already changed the foreign policy of the United States, and that this particular program would not be carried forward. I think that Senator Bricker is entitled to the tribute of the entire American public for that, and I, for one, as an American citizen, want to express my gratitude to him in having led this fight on the floor of Congress. We have cooperated with him. closely. We will continue to do so. And I think that he should go down in history as a distinguished American who, in the course of 2 short years, has already changed the foreign policy of the United States and is about, I trust, to bring into being, with your assistance and the assistance of the Members of the United States Senate, a constitutional amendment that will protect us not for this administration, but will protect our children and our children's children.

Senator BRICKER. Let me say this, that great credit goes to those ho immediately saw the problem when it was brought to their attenion and great credit goes to this committee for the patience and the understanding that they have shown in the consideration of this problem. And I am confident that when this subcommittee reviews all of the proposals that have been made and reviews the testimony, they will present to the Senate of the United States and to the Congress a resolution in wording so plain, so simple, and so fair, that not only the American Bar committee but all of those who joined with us in this resolution can support it.

Let me say further that in presenting this, I only discussed it a year ago. Personally, with the Members who signed, and with others who did not, but with others who are supporting the amendment now-I think some of the really great Senators are in that positionthere was no attempt to get anybody to sign without understanding, or against his better judgment. And this year, when the matter was presented, at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, I was very anxious to have it as the first resolution of the Senate, and was assured that it could be. There were several on their feet at the time that desired to have their names put to it, and only at the urging of Mr. Willis Smith, who is now presiding at this committee hearing, did I attempt to get other signers. Between 1 o'clock and 5 o'clock in the afternoon, 62 other Senators had agreed to go along with this resolution and to sponsor it.

And I want to assure you, as chairman of the bar committee that they did not feel they were doing an anomalous or a vain thing. They thought it was a very fundamental thing that they were doing and a very necessary thing to protect the liberties and the rights of the people of America and to keep the inalienable rights secured in the Bill of Rights imperishable and untarnished so that generations yet to come would have the beneficent benefits and influence of the Constitution of the United States, such as we have had in the past years. And it was with all serious intent and with determination, I believe, that we shall proceed with this thing, and when this committee presents its resolution, I am confident we can go ahead as a united front and get it through the Senate, and then, we hope, through the House of Representatives, and present it to the States.

We will rest our case upon the judgment of hte legislatures of the States of the United States, hoping that they will see the importance of it, as many States already have, including, I think, 8 or 10 at the present time, the most recent 2, I believe, being California and Oregon, which almost unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the amendment as submitted.

Senator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, may I join with Mr. Schweppe in his remarks about Senator Bricker and his leadership? I am one of those who are very happy to follow him in the ranks, joining him in sponsoring Senate Joint Resolution 1. And as I explained in the beginning of this hearing, the reason I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 43 was to have before the committee in printed form the other text, or another draft, having in mind the same objective.

Senator BRICKER. And Arthur, it has been a great contribution, because it does represent the thinking of 5 years of hard work of a committee of the most able lawyers I know in the American P Association.

Senator WATKINS. When the measure is reported out, I want it to be Senate Joint Resolution 1, whatever the text happens to be, because the objectives are identically the same.

Senator SMITH. I would suspect that the Senator would want that done, just as he has mentioned, and I would quite agree with him that it should be known as Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Of course, I have heard this discussed in the section of the American Bar on international law about 5 years ago, long before I expected to be in the Senate, and I was quite amazed at some of the suggestions that were made and the arguments made with respect to the Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on Genocide. At that time I made a fairly complete study of it myself, because of my capacity in the association. And I was quite surprised at the contention made by a few people, at least one of whom appeared here during this hearing. I thought then that his arguments were completely wrong, and I still think so.

I think the problem we have got is to interpret what we understand here is the need for this to the American people generally. And I found out, in talking to people who are not lawyers but who have been interested in this matter, that probably the one argument that they understand best in that the Bill of Rights, which we have revered so much, so long, is in danger unless an amendment of this sort is passed. They understand that, and I think that we should attempt to put over the idea to them.

Of course, I have had some contact with some of the people from these other countries, and I was likewise surprised myself when I found that they had a totally different comprehension of our form of government and their form of government. And with respect to one of the conventions, on genocide, the gentleman who proposed that, who coined the word, happened to be a friend of mine and happened to be in my State for a while. I found that, great student and great scholar that he is, he had a total lack of a concept of American Government, the powers coming up from the people. We was a Central European, and he had a completely different idea, a completely different concept. And I know that we do have friends in other countries and in the United Nations who have not yet understood the difference between our form of government, with the people having the power, and their government, where the power comes down from the govern

ment.

So I think that these gentlemen who have appeared here have rendered us a great service and, of course, I am very proud of the work that has been done by my former colleagues in the American Bar Association. I want to congratulate Mr. Schweppe and Mr. Holman and all the rest of the group, and Mr. Finch. I think they have rendered a real contribution toward understanding what the problem is and how to deal with it. And I want to commend Senator Bricker for being quick to recognize the need for some such amendment as this and to also commend him for his graciousness in being willing to consider any and every proposition that has come up with respect to the language of the text. We, of course, would know that would be his feeling.

Senator BRICKER. I think you will all agree with me that we have taken counsel of our fears, as did the members of the Constitutional

Convention, and as did the Members of the frst Congress of the United States, the fears against the power of government idet and unbridled. Not only have we tåren sommel of those fears, but we have taken counsel of the imperishable years of everyone of us. and of the American people, when they understand the issue that the liberties that are secured in the Constitution shall be made imperisi

able.

Senator SMITH. Gentlemen, if there is nothing else, then, we will adjourn.

As I understand it, this is the last of the bearing.

Mr. SMITHEY. That is right, sir. The Chairman has so announced. Senator SMITH. You will report to the Chairman that we have heard all the witnesses.

Senator BRICKER. I want to also add a word of commendation to Mr. Smithey and Mr. Webb, Mr. Smithey representing the committee. here, and Mr. Webb from my office, who have studied this with the American Bar Association.

Senator SMITH. My judgment is that they have been very, very well informed, indeed, and have given me a good deal of assistance.

Senator BRICKER. I think that is right.

Mr. SCHWEPPE. They are two exceedingly able men. (Whereupon, at 12: 40 p. m., the hearing was closed.)