Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

other things, under section 8 of article I of the Constitution the 1 Tess has the sole power to declare war” and “to raise and sup

- arnies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy"; and under the i. amendment no person is to be deprived of life, liberty, or prop

5 without due process of law; nor is private property to be taken :: public use without just compensation."

Ilze Chief Justice succeeded in getting two other members of the Srnie Court to join him in this extraordinary doctrine whereby he esis the United Nations Charter and other international commitus as superior to the Constitution of the United States. If he had

led in persuading two additional members of the Supreme Court - side with him the United States would in effect then and there note (rased to be an independent Republic and we would have been

mwlitted and bound by whatever the United Nations does or di*** us to do. We would have had a full-fledged world government seraight, and this is exactly what may happen under so-called treaty w unless a constitutional amendment is passed protecting American its and American law and American independence against the efni of -treaties.” Certainly if the American people are to espouse Zodici government—they should at least have the opportunity of

90 knowingly. Neither this nor any other fundamental change sting their government should be imposed upon them by indirec

a

There are many other treaty proposals in the making affecting our u of government and our American rights and liberties. Under the loose language of the charter, the Economic and Social Council 1. propose practically any kind of convention on any subject, po

el social, or economic. In 1913 when the declaration was passed—you will see my correFrience with Secretary Marshall in that speech I introduced-we frre not only assured that it was to be a declaration of aspirations s, but we were also given to understand that the forthcoming coveLai on human rights would not attempt to cover so-called social and -omic rights.

0. November 12, 1948, General Marshall as Secretary of State Envie me as president of the American Bar Association assuring the Lurrican Bar Association that the declaration was only to be a decla31.on of principles and of no legal force or effect. Now we discover 1.6? the sponsors of the declaration are proposing that it should be - tinented as a part of the covenant on human rights—and I take w from the United Nations Bulletin itself, March 1, 1952, pages 240

---and is to be ratified as a treaty and enforced through the or7 Lition of international courts. Thus, the "internationalists" and -State Department move step by step-first aspirations, then rati

en of these aspirations in treaty form, then international courts *,- forre the aspirations. Thus our internal rights under our own 1:"-7'tution, and Bill of Rights, are to be undermined step by step

I continue to be undermined unless the American people shut

insidious process by an appropriate constitutional amendment. Meanwhile, the Genocide Convention is still on the agenda of the wate for ratification, which, if ratified, would, among other things,

sit us to the principle of the trial of American citizens in foreign

7. We fought a revolution to prevent the transportation of 4-wrican citizens overseas for trial. The Genocide Convention carmerican citizens for trial outtutional trial procedures and rassing it should be observed *" document I say that adkind of genocide that occurred arring in Russia and in Russian rueveloped by the American Bar

the subcommittee of the Senate spruary 1950.

American theory of government to the American people. They are it the Government itself and ought modification through the use of the

Bill of Rights forbids the Congress as the Constitution now stands it does som being changed by a treaty made by

h consists of the President and two: and voting. This is the loophole in the mint and through which the internationalists

Vìnw change and level out our American
Tidual) and thereby change our form of

of internationalists say a treaty can be

ternational opinion deems to be of inter*x: human rights” are of international concern. in mieur State Department to say officially that

al ditference between domestic and foreign at Publication 3972—Foreign Affairs Policy ber 1930). But the State Department never

amphrey let the cat out of the bag in January ikiwement did not feel it should tell the American *** story until September 1950. Because of this

Selepartment and declarations by U. N. repre1 tamphrey, article 2, paragraph 7 of the charter, in therein shall authorize the United Nations to

matters, becomes meaningless. picture of what is going on in the international

questions need to be answered. straty a tect or nullify the provisions of the State I truly may completely nullify a provision in a State Mithout the people of a State having any voice in the this or through their State legislature, because under lil'nited States Constitution a treaty is theBride lan*

any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any Larr notwithstanding. 1 * a lawyer will dispute this point. (Santovincenzo v. Egan, Silintine v. U.S., 299 U. S. 5.)

* fial" can a treaty affect or nullify a State statute? The finger in the same. It may, and for the same reason. No informed W!l ditler on this point because it is specifically covered by illon far can a treaty affect or nullify the decision of a State

recourt! The answer is the same. A treaty may nullify a State WAARDO court decision. No informed lawyer will disagree on this berartit also is specifically covered by article VI.

a

[ocr errors]

1. How far ean a treaty affect or nullify existing Federal legislation te same subject? The answer is the same. See U. S. v. Reid ((C.

TF. (2) 153, 155), where the court said: s dubtful if the courts have power to declare the plain terms of a treaty : 101 udenforceable * waivolS. v. T'hompson (258 Fed. 257, 260), where the court said: 2- pwer to make treaties has been frequently before the Supreme Court,

*** Te is not a single instance in which a treaty has been declared uncon

ilan a treaty amend or override the United States Constitution : Bll of Rights, and, if so, to what extent ? Under the logical ap

won of Vissouri v. Holland (252 U. S. 416) it can. This will Rivused later, because upon this point there is disagreement among

But it should be pointed out in passing that if a treaty can rimad or override the Constitution of the United States, then a

at Tean: : Change our form of government from a Republic to a socialis1: d completely centralized state. 1) It can put is into a world government without the people either

is or through the Congress passing on the question. Is It can increase the powers of the Federal Government at the *Ise of the States. For example, in the so-called field of civil S's a treaty can do what the Congress has theretofore refused to

Te Congress has to date refused to enact the civil rights pro3. To get around this, in spite of Congress, Truman's Committee Civil Rights last year proposed that the Human Rights Commis

of the United Nations incorporate the President's program in i form and thus circumvent the Congress (Civil Rights Com*** Report, par. 10).

1 treaty can seriously affect our basic individual rights as, :-, simple, the right of a citizen to be tried in American courts and

- the protection of "due process." This was openly asserted in opport of the section of international comparative law to the house rates of the American Bar Association in February 1952, where 7ated:

lar as the requirement of indictment by grand jury and trial by jury are --7). these apply only to trials in the Federal courts, and can have no q* cuff to an international court set up by a group of nations in the exer

ir treaty-making power * * * there is no reason why such courts may frated in the exercise of the treaty-making power. ter words, it is claimed that under the treaty-making power siion may be made for the trial of American citizens abroad, for - ** committed here, by methods and in places (see Sixth amend

' which the Constitution forbids. I will not discuss the question heretofore raised (about which there op disagreement among lawyers) as to whether, under the Holmes :rne in Missouri v. Holland (252 U. S. 416 (1920) ), a treaty can

ize or amend the United States Constitution and bypass the Bill Rs. I: Harlier C'nited States Supreme Court cases it was indicated that

ty may not enlarge or amend the Constitution of the United

a

Ir. Varr Orleans v. United States (10 Pet. 662 (1836)), it was held Pirt that “Congress cannot by legislation, enlarge the Federal juris

[ocr errors]

Lippone under the treaty-making power." Thi:

strips or mi to as having invalidated a treaty on the 1.2. cutie decision is explainable on other grounds and Intre treaty-making power is in any event in conflict ...das will later appear.

one 'in 16 How. 635 (U. S., 1853)), the Court indicated

Lection was superior to a treaty: alla stherefore a law made by the proper authority, and the courts

in Pune per right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they D. (lascitution of the United States. * **

te vin in v. Lynham (10 Otto 483 (U. S., 1880)), although the Tak Virginia statute regarding escheat of alien property had et militied by an American-Swiss treaty, it suggested that there memilimitations upon the treaty-making power by saying that:

There are doubtless limitations of this power as there are of all others arents under such instruments; but this is not the proper occasion to consider l'e ubyt Following the Hauenstein case and in support of a doctrine of limita

a Nous came Dicieofroy v. Riggs (133 U. S. 258 (1890)). In this case the court clearly indicated that the treaty-making power was not to be treated as unlimited.

In two earlier cases, Whitney v. Robertson (124 U. S. 190 (1888)) und Beiller v. Dominguez (130 U. S. 238 (1889)), an important limitation was indicated, to-wit: that a treaty may be abrogated by the enactment of a subsequent Federal statute clearly inconsistent therewith such a limitation would, of course, have the salutary effect of preserving in the people, through their elected Representatives in Yongress, the ultimate power of preventing the President, with the consent of the Senate, from making domestic law on a particular subject, or supplementing or amending the Constitution of the United States without the consent of the people.

But the sunity and safety of the developing judicial doctrine of the earlier decisions regarding proper limitations upon the treaty-making power was more or less swept away by the broad language of Mr. Justice lolmes in Vissouri v. Holland (252 U. S. 416 (1920)). In This case Mri Justice Holmes held that whereas congressional enactments to be the supreme law of the land must be made in pursuance of the Constitution, i treaty is the supreme law of the land if made only under the authority of the United States, which merely means the Irident and two-thirds of the Senate present and voting. Under the Holmes concept a treaty, unlike a Federal statute, will be valid and be the supreme law of the land even though not made “in pursuance of the Constitution."

The language of article VI requiring a treaty merely to be made der the authority of the United States, rather than in pursuance of the Constitution, thus resulted in the Supreme Court holding that umeral treaty Congress may exercise legislative powers which it would not have under the Constitution in the absence of the treaty and that Congress may press any legislation under a treaty that it deems “necessury and proper" (Constitution, art. I, sec. 8) regardless of what may be the constitutional limitations on the Congress apart from the treaty. Therefore, the logical result of Missouri v. Holland is that a treaty may both enlarge and change the Constitution itself and sweep away State constitutions and State laws in the process.

Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes almost prophetically recognized 'vertitutional predicament the people of America now face when

- April 26, 1929, speaking before the American Society of Interna:: Law he said:

I take the Constitution to mean what it says, it gives in terms to the Er states the power to make treaties, it is a power that has no explicit limita

***led to it, and so far there has been no disposition to find in anything *** to the external concerns of the Nation a limitation to be implied.

S there is, however, a new line of activity which has not been very noticeable = bis country, but which may be in the future, and this may give rise to new

us as to the extent of the treaty-making power. I have been careful in **** I have said to refer to the external concerns of the Nation, I should not 1) Toice any opinion as to an implied limitation on the treaty-making power. - Sopreme Court has expressed a doubt whether there could be any such.

is the doubt has been expressed in one of its opinions. (Meaning, Missouri iaiand, But if there is a limitation to be implied, I should say it might be

intip nature of the treaty-making power. .$: is the power to make a treaty? What is the object of the power? The Pope of the power can be found in the appropriate object of the power.

Wer is to deal with foreign nations with regard to matters of international

It is not a power intended to be exercised, it may be assumed, with Katto matters that have no relation to international concerns. But if we at-* to use the treatymaking power to deal with matters which did not 19 to our external relations but to control matters which normally and

riately were within the local jurisdictions of the States, then I again say ->siglt be ground for implying a limitation upon the treatymaking power

it is intended for the purpose of having treaties made relating to foreign vald not to make laws for the people of the United States in their internal erns through the exercise of the asserted treatymaking power.

Bit this is exactly what is now being attempted by the modern "inmonalists" in the United Nations—to use treaties to make domes

—and they propose through the doctrine of Missouri against Hand to make laws for the people of the United States in their mon) concerns,” for as the State Department has officially said:

upp is no longer any real difference between 'domestic' and 'foreign' N" (State Department publication 3972, foreign affairs policy

, released September 1950.). Mr. John Foster Dulles at the regional meeting of the American Bar 4cation at Louisville April 12, 1952, stated the danger we face as :: raty law" as follows:

5 law can override the Constitution, and treaties can cut across the rights Fete people by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Prause of this grave threat to constitutional government in this

iry and in order to set at rest this matter of risking what the Sme Court may do under the new concept of "treaty law," the

rican Bar Association, after several years of consideration and - full debate in its house of delegates, concluded that a constituwanendment is necessary to preserve American rights and the

rican form of government against the dangers of treaties and *- it re agreements. The form of amendment which the members

- Aluerican Bar Association committee on peace and law believe :priate and adequate has been set forth in my preliminary state

and is again set forth for convenience: 4. ;-ision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution Dan be of any force or effect. A treaty shall become effective as internal law t'iwtid States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence *7. Executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress te liinitations imposed on treaties by this article.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »