Senator BRICKER. I appreciate that, but I wanted to make it clear "the objective is that.

Mr. HOLMAN. I understand that perfectly.

Senator SMITH. May I make this point: as I understand, Mr. Holwhat you are doing there is you want to get away from any idea at under our form of government the Government has enumerated passed down rights to the people.

Mr. HOLMAN. That is right.

Senator SMITH. But, rather, that the people themselves possess the s originally.

Mr. HOLMAN. That is right.

Senator SMITH. And they still possess all of those rights which not been granted to the General Government.

Mr. HOLMAN. That is right; that is exactly right.

Senator SMITH. The conception, as I have found, of some foreignis that they get their rights from the Government, that they are assed down, instead of the rights of the Government passing up. I k that is a point we may have considerable to do with straighten

yout.

Mr. HOLMAN. That is the point I am making. I am talking about age, not objectives.

Senator SMITH. I am reminded by that of the incident I told you t of my friend the Polish gentleman and lawyer where I disvered that when in conversation with him-and I have known him any years that he did not have the conception of our constitutional vernment that I have and that you have.

Mr. HOLMAN. That is right.

Sator BRICKER. I think it is safe to say that no country in the rd has ever looked upon human rights except ours as anything I what the Government gives the people.

Mr. HOLMAN. That is right. That is exactly what the Russians Mr. Roosevelt, and she admitted it in a public interview. She ld be given credit for trying to get something in the declaration at man is endowed by his creator with certain rights. And I have -w-paper clippings here on that, which I can furnish if necessary. Russians said, “Oh, no, that is all wrong. The individual has yuch rights as the government gives him, and he only has them og as the government lets him have them." Then they tried to

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

by anybody. He just gets what the state gives him." That is at happened under the international documents. We have comrised with the other fellow's point of view all the way along. Serator BRICKER. Showing the impossibility of getting our point Few ever accepted.

Mr. HOLMAN. That is right.

Mr. SCHWEPPE. They did agree in the new second Covenant on HuRights, which describes the social, economic, and cultural rights, a clause in one paragraph that these rights "are granted by the

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

less there be added thereto the words "as determined by the 1 States." It is true that it is hornbook law that the Supreme of the United States is the final arbiter of the Constitution of Vited States, but it is also true, as we know, that many interalists, including representatives of the United States GovernIn the U. N. are of the view that

- Le matter has become, in one way or another, the subject of regulations United Nations, be it by resolution of the General Assembly or by conn between member states at the instance of the United Nations, that such - to be a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the mem

I may say so, Senator, I would like to give you this thought, which Id not get in here. You see, the way they-if I may use the word quotes-"fooled" us up to the moment is having put in a reference omestic matters in article VII of the Charter, and by having wed us Mr. Stettinius' letter there was to be interference in dotic matters they bypassed that whole thing by saying, "There is : no difference between domestic and foreign affairs." If you put phrase in like "over any other matters essentially within the domesjurisdiction 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. Sator BRICKER. Such as you suggest, "as determined by the Tited States."

Here is what I am driving at, Mr. Holman. I will be very open bet it: Phillip Jessup's concept of this treaty power is the right bring about a world government through treaty, and also the conover our domestic, social, and economic rights, world medicine, alized medicine, and so forth, and I am trying to plug that loopso that there will be no possibility of it.

Mr. HOLMAN. That is what we want to do.

Senator BRICKER. I have not any pride of language in it.
Mr. HOLMAN. I know.

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

Mr. HOLMAN. I will tell you. When Dr. Finch testifies, he is our arning expert on No. 2. I am kind of sticking my neck out here. Senator BRICKER. All right, I will be here.

Mr. HOLMAN. What I wanted to call your attention to, because it >ver quite occurred to me before, is that they might, if you use that rase "over any other matters essentially within the domestic jurison of the United States" is they might say that there are no -er any such matters.

zator BRICKER. You might qualify that by saying "as determined te Constitution" or "as provided in the Constitution."

Mr. HOLMAN. That is why I want you to think a little as to whether "a don't need another phrase there as determined by us, because they determine that we have not got anything left that is within our mestic jurisdiction.

ator BRICKER. The State Department said that.

Mr. HOLMAN. I know.

It is said that the foregoing represents "the official view of the Ted Nations, as well as of the member states that have voted in

72-53-11

the other nations, as in the common law of Canada, although I understand they do r 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 e
is dead, they can change a contractual
to the good of the state to do it. So t
old remnant of absolute
there
power

country.
Senator BRICKER. Parliament is
Senator SMITH. They are elected
Mr. HOLMAN. That is true, but y
private contracts.

Senator BRICKER. The Parlian In Canada there is no bill of rig! they not?

Mr. HOLMAN. That is right.

COMMU

เ

Section 2, which undertak power or international or. or control over the rights. United States, is unnecess Association's concept. T under the Constitution national organization a citizens in the United if the treaty power is tution, and Congress: delegated (apart fro national organizatio zens of the United :

In matters of d Constitution" are in the comment o Senator BRIC further with yo Mr. HOLMAN. Moreover, t highly desir. "supervise, States"-for

tional com of damages settling th of Washin Trail sn have thr the righ making Furt

the do

Rights." (Treaties an 130, p. 525.)

erican Bar Association' f-executing as interna Sation, but omits the fur ress must legislate unde treaty. While section: on-self-executing until th Missouri v. Holland which of a constitutional amend the further language of th in legislating under treatie powers. The basic question V. Holland shall be limited permitted under the develop alists to embrace all sorts of to be within the retained juris ...e and not delegated to Congress as suggested by the Americar tutional balance between State ally upset under the doctrine of by legislation, can take over vast

to the States and to the people. the American Bar Association's o its delegated powers, may please

Realist-minded and favor a strong se of the States; but if section 3 States will have to fight their battles nting Congress by persuasion from d to be invaded under the Constitu

V. Holland. From the point of hts of the States and of the people it Tosch section 3 in the amendment at all, t actually be construed as enlarging ate in connection with many matters ral Government.

resent time the Senate and the President on, we have further protected the States We the Congress of the United States. u are setting up an omnipotent legislative

have got a legislative branch.

aways with such gentlemen as you and cor Smith is there. We think very strongly nstitutional amendment, turn from arbitrary orary Executive legislative power. That is

anguage of section 3 of Senate Joint Resolufed, might actually be construed as modifying or

protective features of the 9th and 10th

Statement of Views, I believe the peace ow simplified and improved its own former implementation clause by merely having it become effective as internal law in the United legislation"-as pointed out this morning, we Congress"-"which would be valid in the absence

on 4:

to executive agreements carries out in different cept of the American Bar Association's proposal, executive agreements are subject to the control of all be made only in the manner and to the extent pre

tence of section 4 is satisfactory but it does not recogthe American Bar Association's proposal, that the power already exists to limit executive agreements by legislation. ....ze this probability may be of importance for purposes of the case the proposed amendment should be passed by Congress ..to get the requisite approval by the States. In other words, word should not be made to appear that Congress presently thinks no power to regulate executive agreements.

last sentence of section 4 reads "such agreement shall be subject - limitations imposed on treaties, or the making of treaties by this le. The objective of the draftsmen is reasonably clear but the Lage does not seem to be entirely happy. The words "or the ing of treaties" is surplusage.

Again, as set forth in my main Statement of Views, I think the peace 1 law committee has now simplified and improved its own former aft covering executive agreements by merely having it state, "execuagreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and to mitations 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. wever, it does embody the basic principle, namely, that executive rements are subject to congressional control and cannot invade American rights any further than a treaty can do under the new Posed limitations on the treaty powers.

The overall objection to Senate Joint Resolution 1 is that it is long to be readily grasped and understood by the people or even State legislatures. Naturally, the important thing is to get a nd amendment but as simple an amendment as possible, but adee as to both language and content to protect American rights. eve the draft now proposed by the peace and law committee, as frth in my main statement of views meets these requirements. In r to have it officially before this Committee at these hearings, introduced in the Senate last Monday as Senate Joint Resolu43 and reads as follows:

A provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution Lot be of any force or effect.

treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.

Estive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and to Stations imposed on treaties by this article.