Imagini ale paginilor

diction nor e
case is some
foregoing g
its reasoni
with Miss
In Doe
that the (

The tre of justice violate th In II Court been r were !

*** arisin the


[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

to make a little stateamendment to protect the dangers of "treaty the following purposes

or executive agreement sent with the Constitution al constitutional effect to Anding decisions, to the effect rge the Federal jurisdiction,

aking power," and that no Constitution or which is in-. ment of the United States or The United States, shall be valid. Pet. 662, 736); The Cherokee Tov. Joy (17 Wall. 211, 243); De) and see Asakura v. Seattle res drawn by some persons from , and U. S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corthat the treaty power is unlimited Constitution, should be unqualifiedly and any doubt on this score be forStates v. Pink (315 U. S. 203, 233-4). revent a treaty or executive agreement the United States by force of its selfent should make all treaties non-selfaw is concerned until implementing lege amendment should remove the doubt executing or non-self-executing from the

and make the internal effectiveness of States depend exclusively on implement

e out in this connection, in almost every e world except the United States, each country end to what extent it wishes to implement a of legislation even though such signatory State

eget such legislation. (Report, peace and eer 1950, pp. 9 to 12.)

ss the only important country that faces the at on, except possibly France and Mexico-that is 48" us, if I may say so, but France is not a federal

France has no bill of rights like we have, and So I merely point that out. As I say, upon ey are not true exceptions, but when a treaty is ratironal process by the President with the consent of sions automatically becomes a part of the supreme Hence, in the United States when an international The United Nations Charter, or the genocide convenvenant on human rights, is ratified as a treaty, it may ANAC MCA Ony ordinance, every county ordinance, every State over State constitution, and every Federal statute on the same Adder the logical result of the Holmes doctrine in Missg Holland, it may enlarge and amend the Constitution A sad States.

The amendment should limit the language of the decision of Missouri against Holland, supra, by making it clear that in legislating respect of treaties, Congress shall have no power which it does not Pady have under the Constitution, apart from its power to carry rates into effect under the "necessary and proper clause" of the ensutution art. I, sec. 8). The amendment should take care of - broad language in U. S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, supra 29 U. S. 304), where the language of the Court espouses the theory f unrestricted inherent Federal power in the field of international


4 The amendment should make it inescapably clear that the limions on Congress in the first amendment that "Congress shall make law" cannot be escaped by use of the treatymaking power or by utive agreement under the claim that the President and Senate e a separate agency for treatymaking and are not subject to contutional limitations on Congress. (See report of committee on eace and law, September 1, 1950, pp. 40-41.) Some critics say that a y amendment accomplishing the foregoing purposes and objectives ld prevent the proper exercise of the treatymaking power in the ternational field-that such an amendment would abridge the power fthe United States to make treaties of commerce, of navigation and f friendship and the power to make many other traditional types of Paties. This argument is fully disposed of in the February 1952 tort of the committee on peace and law, pages 14 to 17, inclusive, the matter has been dealt with at greater length in an article aring in the June 1952 issue of the American Bar Association al by Dr. George A. Finch, an eminent authority on treaties and the editor of the American Journal of International Law. Several different drafts of amendments have been proposed but for eity and directness of language I believe this text now recomed by the American Bar Association's committee on peace and best meets the objective of protecting American rights and the Aerican form of government. An increasing number of lay orzations have approved the proposal for such a constitutional dment. These now include such organizations as the American on, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Marine Corps League of erica, service clubs, and many other organizations. And I would to introduce the list because it is rather formidable. I would se to now introduce a list of organizations that officially support the stitutional amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

The list referred to is as follows:)


American Bar Association: The following State Bar associations have cally adopted resolutions favoring a constitutional amendment on treaty Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Misppi. Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Is Washington

al Association of Attorneys General-This is highly significant because this association represents the chiefs of the legal departments of each of the 48 Rowing State legislatures have passed resolutions favoring a constitutional Abendment on treaty law: California, Colorado, Georgia, Wyoming.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ee Conference on National Defense, representing gamers throughout the United States:

Sisters, Inc.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

aan's Relier Corps Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the

ASA Auxiliary

lets Club of America

Cry Colony, National Society of New England Women

Sesers of the U. S. Navy

eva' Go'd Star Mothers, Inc.

44 does of Progress

Stes Army Mothers

be Appy and Navy Legion of Valor of the U. S. A.

400x National Defense Committee of Philadelphia

ice merely local organizations throughout the United States have a con de proposal for a constitutional amendment.


‚å « des »ɔt passed a formal resolution for a constitutional amendment, TOO CNCINE OF Commerce of the United States first through a special committee s stody the subject, then through its standing committee on policy, nx whole body of delegates at its annual meeting in April of last year vode a d ́ossi'y understandable language adopted the following policy with regroup de presses of making international agreements and with respect to The edit on domestic law of such agreements:

A No provision of a treaty or of an executive agreement that alters or abridge the Constitution of the United States shall become effective unless such a'se ation or change is embodied in a constitutional amendment adopted and tatted in the manner provided in that Constitution for its amendment.

B. No provision of a treaty or of an executive agreement that alters or abridges ner zits protected by the laws of the United States or the Constitution or laws te several States shall become effective unless and then only to the extent -- Cou-Tess shall so provide.


National Association of Manufacturers has officially adopted a declaration y similar to that adopted by the United States Chamber of Commerce. Mr. HOLMAN. This movement, if I may say so, is now a matter of terest not merely to lawyers but to great organizations like the Azerican Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Marine Corps e of America, service clubs and many organizations as shown the list introduced.

Tie is a widespread national interest in the matter, calling for ay action by the Congress.

[ocr errors]

I believe the foregoing text is best because in simple and underndable language, without unduly restricting treaty-making power, meets the following minimum requirements to protect American rts (State and individual) against treaties and executive agreeents for it clearly provides

1 That no provision of a treaty which conflicts with a provision fthe Constitution of the United States is valid.

That no treaty is effective until implemented by legislation. This merely puts the United States on a par with other nations as : the initial effect of a treaty.)

3. That no legislation shall be valid if contrary to or in excess of powers delegated to the Congress by the Constitution.

4. That executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Ingress and to the limitations imposed on treaties.

In my opinion, a constitutional amendment along the foregoing zes is necessary to protect American rights and to preserve the American form of government. I believe it will have the support of arre majority of Americans and in due course will receive the apwal of the necessary three-fourths of the States.

Now, I prepared, Senator Bricker, a comment on your text. I tated that early this morning. I would like to put that in and comment on it at the moment. I have indicated the broad line at I think the amendment should cover. This is a separate memodum in re Senate Joint Resolution 1. I will first quote you Senate ent Resolution 1 so it is before you conveniently, so you don't have Lave it on a separate sheet:

SECTION 1. A provision of a treaty which denies or abridges any right enuented in this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

S. 2. No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any ernational organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate rights of citizens the United States within the United States enumerated in this Constitution *y other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United

3. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United es only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress. Sp. 4. All executive or other agreements between the President and any rational organization, foreign power, or official thereof, shall be made only e manner and to the extent to be prescribed by law. Such agreements he subject to the limitations imposed on treaties, or the making of treaties, .* article.

5 The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate nisation.

SEC. 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.


In my opinion, section 1, in its phrasing, falls short of protecting American rights (State and individual) against the dangers of "treaty law" in merely providing that—

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

The language is insufficient to act as a protective constitutional shield against the invasion of many basic rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution protects many rights not enumerated in that instrument. The ninth amendment, for example, provides that

the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

On this subject and others the Constitution itself protects nonenumerated rights. Also, the 10th amendment protects nonenumerated rights by providing 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. One such basic right is the right to determine its law of property. For example, some States have community property, others different laws with respect to the acquisition, ownership, and enjoyment of property, which are not enumerated in the Constitution.

The phrasing, in my judgment, fails to take into account the constitutional concepts contained in both the 9th and 10th amendments. The American Bar Association draft does this and therefore would seem preferable. It provides "a provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect." This simple provision adequately takes care of those very important rights and powers covered by the 9th and 10th amend


Even many of those who are pronounced opponents of any "treaty law" amendment have not quarreled with the language of the first sentence of the American Bar proposal. For the most part our critics have merely said that a constitutional amendment to that particular effect is unnecessary because already any provision of a treaty which actually conflicted with the Constitution would be held invalid by the courts-which we of course think is at least sufficiently doubtfulthat the only way to be sure of it, is to have a protective constitutional amendment that will make it sure for all time.

Senator BRICKER. I might say in connection with that that we want a first sentence all-inclusive of all rights observed by American people, whether observed or granted or what not.

Mr. HOLMAN. Don't misunderstand me. We agree with your objective and you agree with ours. I think it would be helpful. Senator BRICKER. I think it is.

Mr. HOLMAN. That instead of having loose talk by we people in the American Bar, if I just put it down. This is not the American Bar. This is just Frank Holman.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »