Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

nator BRICKER. I appreciate that, but I wanted to make it clear a' the objective is that. Mr.HOLMAX. I understand that perfectly.

nator Suth. May I make this point: as I understand, Mr. Holsing what you are doing there is you want to get away from any idea 31 under our form of government the Government has enumerated

down rights to the people. Vir.HOLMAX. That is right. Yator Suth. But, rather, that the people themselves possess the : 1-originally. Mr. HOLMAX. That is right.

bator Smith. And they still possess all of those rights which astriot been granted to the General Government. Mr. HULLAX. That is right; that is exactly right. slator Suth. The conception, as I have found, of some foreignis that they get their rights from the Government, that they are **** down, instead of the rights of the Government passing up. I " that is a point we may have considerable to do with straighten

it. Mr. HOLYAN. That is the point I am making. I am talking about 2 Tage, not objectives. Stator STH. I am reminded by that of the incident I told you ut of my friend the Polish gentleman and lawyer where I dissered that when in conversation with him—and I have known him

ay tears—that he did not have the conception of our constitutional : terment that I have and that you have.

Mr. HLMAN. That is right. Hator BRICKER. I think it is safe to say that no country in the * Die has ever looked upon human rights except ours as anything

1 what the Government gives the people. Mr. HOLAN. That is right. That is exactly what the Russians

MN Roosevelt, and she admitted it in a public interview. She

l be given credit for trying to get something in the declaration si man is endowed by his creator with certain rights. And I have -w-paper clippings here on that, which I can furnish if necessary. CrRsians said, "Oh, no, that is all wrong. The individual has

th rights as the government gives him, and he only has them 2:19.4 as the government lets him have them.” Then they tried to

T: something about man is endowed by nature, which is a little of a personal God than the Creator. They said, “No, he isn't en

. run by anybody. He just gets what the state gives him." That is 7 at happened under the international documents. We have com

fied with the other fellow's point of view all the way along. Sator BRICKER. Showing the impossibility of getting our point rew ever accepted. Mr. HOLMAX. That is right. Jr. SCHWEPPE. They did agree in the new second Covenant on HuCar Rights, which describes the social, economic, and cultural rights, iarlause in one paragraph that these rights "are granted by the

vator SMITH. Might it not be well, Mr. Holman, to bear in mind muli versation I have had with Mr. Rix that we, of course, recoghe rights in the people, as is true at least of a few of the nations,

a

SEO. 6. This article shall be as an amendment to the Const several States within seven yti

CO

: England, and I presume

have the same kind of -ction. Sator Smith, can do many

can for treason and fore a man's will after he ration if they think it is are still got some of that, we do not have in our

supreme. sentatives of the people.

legislative supremacy over

England is utterly supreme. --Tare debating one now; are

TOX 2

In my opinion, section American rights (State a law” in merely providing:

A provision of a treaty this Constitution shall not be

The language is ins" shield against the inva the Constitution. The merated in that instr provides that, the enumeration in the r' deny or disparage others : On this subject and merated rights. Alrights by providing · the powers not delegata. by it to the States, a One such basic rig For example, some laws with respect property, which a

The phrasing, i stitutional concep The American B. seem preferable. with any provisio effect." This sii important right ments.

Even many o' law” amendmei sentence of the have merely sa effect is unnece actually confii courts—which that the only amendment t1

Senator B a first senten ple, whether

Mr. HOLM jective and

Senator B

Mr. HOLM the America Bar. This

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

less there be added thereto the words "as determined by the

States." It is true that it is hornbook law that the Supreme xf the United States is the final arbiter of the Constitution of [...ted States, but it is also true, as we know, that many inter

sists, including representatives of the United States Govern• r: the C. N. are of the view that, - De matter has become, in one way or another, the subject of regulations - tuited Nations, be it by resolution of the General Assembly or by con

between member states at the instance of the United Nations, that such {o be a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the mem

Iruy say so, Senator, I would like to give you this thought, which

not get in here. You see, the way they—if I may use the word Gotes-"fooled” us up to the moment is having put in a reference meetic matters in article VII of the Charter, and by having

ed us Mr. Stettinius' letter there was to be interference in doPatie matters they bypassed that whole thing by saying, “There is T no difference between domestic and foreign affairs.” If you put

nase in like "over any other matters essentially within the domes- jurisdiction of the United States” you have pretty nearly got to

something in there also negative of the state's announcement of

y, because they will ride right through it again, you see. Szator BRICKER. Such as you suggest, “as determined by the

ei States." Here is what I am driving at, Mr. Holman. I will be very open tit: Phillip Jessup's concept of this treaty power is the right

turing about a world government through treaty, and also the concoser our domestic, social, and economic rights, world medicine, inl.zed medicine, and so forth, and I am trying to plug that loopup so that there will be no possibility of it. Mr. HOLYAN. That is what we want to do. Senator BRICKER. I have not any pride of language in it. Mr. HOLMAN. I know.

nator BRICKER. I want to do it in section 2. I don't know whether grave done it or not.

Mr. HOLYAN. I will tell you. When Dr. Finch testifies, he is our :15ing expert on No. 2. I am kind of sticking my neck out here. saator BRICKER. All right, I will be here. Mr. HOLMAN. What I wanted to call your attention to, because it YT- quite occurred to me before, is that they might, if you use that *Pese over any other matters essentially within the domestic juris:ion of the United States” is they might say that there are no for any such matters. Scator BRICKER. You might qualify that by saying “as determined

econstitution” or “as provided in the Constitution.” Mr. HOLMAN. That is why I want you to think a little as to whether

don't need another phrase there as determined by us, because they :: determine that we have not got anything left that is within our : estic jurisdiction. Vator BRICKER. The State Department said that. Mr. HOLMAN. I know. It is said that the foregoing represents "the official view of the

ed Nations, as well as of the member states that have voted in

12-5311

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

COMMI

the other nations, as in the common law of

Sichts." (Treaties an Canada, although I understand they do r :30, p. 525.) rights we have. That would be another e

Mr. HOLMAN. The British Parliament, things our Congress can't. They can try feit his land and property, they can o

erican Bar Association: is dead, they can change a contractua!

f-executing as interna - mo to the good of the state to do it. Sot

sation, but omits the fur old remnant of absolute power there

ress must legislate unde

treaty. While section country. Senator BRICKER. Parliament is

on-self-executing until th: Senator SMITH. They are electer

Vlissouri v. Holland which
Mr. HOLMAN. That is true, but y

m of a constitutional amend of private contracts.

::he further language of the Senator BRICKER. The Parlia'

in legislating under treatie In Canada there is no bill of rig

powers. The basic question they not?

hv. Holland shall be limiter - if we Mr. HOLMAN. That is right.

permitted under the develop

alists to embrace all sorts o Ist so be within the retained juristab

ved and not delegated to Congress Section 2, which undertak

es suggested by the Americar power or international 01'

vational balance between State or control over the rights ·

ally upset under the doctrine of United States, is unneces

or legislation, can take over vast Association's concept. 1

rto the States and to the people. under the Constitution

the American Bar Association's national organization a

pits delegated powers, may please citizens in the United

emalist-minded and favor a strong if the treaty power is'

Nip of the States; but if section 3 tution, and Congress i

ties will have to fight their battles delegated (apart fro

pricing Congress by persuasion from national organizati

i to be invaded under the Constituzens of the United :

v. Holland. From the point of In matters of it

its of the States and of the people it Constitution" are

Leach section 3 in the amendment at all, in the comment on

it actually be construed as enlarging Senator BRIC

are in connection with many matters further with y

incial Government. Mr. HOLMAN

nt time the Senate and the President Moreover, t

pel, we have further protected the States highly desir

Folhe Congress of the United States. "supervise,

out one setting up an omnipotent legislative States'tional com

have got a legislative branch. of damage

is wars with such gentlemen as you and settling ti

steur Smith is there. We think very strongly of Washi

Nimitutional amendment, turn from arbitrary Trail shii

sary Executive legislative power. That is have the the rig! making

suguage of section 3 of Senate Joint ResoluFuri

pui night actually be construed as modifying or the do

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

+ protective features of the 9th and 10th

Statement of Views, I believe the peace W simplified and improved its own former

implementation clause by merely having it 1 come effective as internal law in the United

iparislation"—as pointed out this morning, we .tvligress"_"which would be valid in the absence

on 4:

to executive agreements carries out in different cept of the American Bar Association's proposal, precutive agreements are subject to the control of ill be made only in the manner and to the extent prethee of section 4 is satisfactory but it does not recogLe American Bar Association's proposal, that the power :: eady exists to limit executive agreements by legislation. ..ze this probability may be of importance for purposes of the ce the proposed amendment should be passed by Congress :in get the requisite approval by the States. In other words, vya should not be made to appear that Congress presently thinks "O power to regulate executive agreements.

last sentence of section + reads "such agreement shall be subject - limitations imposed on treaties, or the making of treaties by this *e.The objective of the draftsmen is reasonably clear but the Juage does not seem to be entirely happy. The words “or the

ng of treaties” is surplusage. lain, as set forth in my main Statement of Views, I think the peace :: law committee has now simplified and improved its own former ft covering executive agreements by merely having it state, "execu- agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and to

hitations imposed on treaties by this article." I do not see that section 4 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 is any

Santial improvement over the American Bar Association's draft. 2 terer, it does embody the basic principle, namely, that executive

ments are subject to congressional control and cannot invade brican rights any further than a treaty can do under the new - sed limitations on the treaty powers.

The overall objection to Senate Joint Resolution 1 is that it is **000 to be readily grasped and understood by the people or even I siste legislatures. Naturally, the important thing is to get a sd amendment but as simple an amendment as possible, but ade1.1'e as to both language and content to protect American rights. rere the draft now proposed by the peace and law committee, as

ith in my main statement of views meets these requirements. In ex? to have it officially before this Committee at these hearings, igs introduced in the Senate last Monday as Senate Joint Resolu

43 and reads as follows: ! Timision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution 42. be of any force or effect.

ty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only

lexislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty. 1-ure agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and to zations imposed on treaties by this article.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »