raving effect to treaty provisions as internal law within the United States. Franse the question of whether and to what extent a treaty is self-executing today not clearly defined, all treaties should be made non-self-executing in -mestic area until Congress acts.

This arrangement not only would let the several States of the United States E promptly where they stand, but would put the United States on a parity other nations, and would put the world on notice of the limitations on erica's treaty-making power.

I may be that limiting Congress to implementing treaties within the field of delegated powers will exclude some areas in which treaties are now made or

LOOPHOLE IN DOCUMENT

America's Bill of Rights forbids the Congress to change basic rights; but as Constitution now stands, it does not prevent the basic rights from being ized by a treaty made by the treaty-making agency, which consists of the Plent and two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.

This is the loophole in the Constitution which Americans now face, and through the internationalists propose to move and, by treaty law, change and level American rights (both State and individual) and therefore change the form Government.

Ize proposed amendments are not anti-U. N. measures. They do not prevent Cited States from participating fully in all the activities of the United is authorized by its Charter.

The proposed U. N. Human Rights Covenants, however, illustrate the dangers rent in the treatymaking power. They are predicated on the astounding tin-American theory that, although the basic rights cannot be changed by 1 ́s of Con-ress or by our State legislatures, yet they can be impaired and even oyed by international action, and America's social and economic policies te, and fixed by international declarations and treaties. Americans can and should do much within the U. N. to promote worldwide t for human rights. But rather than lower Americans' own standards of in Tberty to compromise with godless and Socialist members of the U. N., Trited States should seek to bring them up to its standards.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

There is also the great danger today that American sovereignty may be wed down by those who seek a gradual approach to world government 3h the United Nations.

It is no mere rhetorical statement to say that America faces a great constitucrisis-one that threatens the very foundations of the Republic.

The effect of trying to incorporate in an international document the rights et freedoms which American citizens enjoy, whether under State or National *** *ution, and to make them international rights and matters of international ceration, and to give foreign governments as well as individuals and Pessure groups in foreign countries the right and opportunity to challenge Ava's interpretation of its rights, and even to challenge its rights to the *teet on of its own courts, constitutes not only a grave threat to American ts but an actual and present threat to the independence of the United States. present treaty clause in the Constitution under present-day conditions is 17 jan horse which is about to unload its hidden soldiery in America's midst. bed therefore is a constitutional amendment that will drive the beast outTe the walls without more damage done and with its remaining armored solecurely locked within.

CON

Cnties of these proposed amendments to the Constitution say no change in vaty-making procedure is necessary. They argue as follows:

es would alter the basic structure of the Government as established by the butution;

are contrary to the basic theory of separation of powers among the three es of the government;

would seriously curtail the treaty-making authority of the United States, ing the Government from entering into many treaties which are beneficial sary to the interests of the United States;

warfare with the historic and fundamental functions Saale in the field of foreign affairs that they would Treated States in the world today.

ws of the opposition follows:

vrben recognized that, although govermental power Was there was even greater danger in rendering the ng effectively with problems it would face.

HTS OF SOVEREIGNTY

ser to the United States, in its dealings with other veh other nations exercise. They would seriously Federal-State relations. They would make intermis more difficult to negotiate and enforce.

rictions not because the Nation's Bill of Rights es the advocates of these amendments fear that care they might be.

aker presented by the proponents of the amendments are the the Senate may be asked to consider giving betion of a treaty or treaties of information, on national criminal court.

CONSIDER ON MERITS

TM Donation conventions were never fully completed and e by the U. N. The United States has announced it suse of objectionable features.

rights that the U. N. has been working on for 5 en and years from completion.

rnational criminal court is only under preliminary te, and is likewise years from becoming anything for ya 20 otsider.

ver or even dangerous in the people of the world being zevect and guarantee human freedoms; and the United va a ding in such endeavors.

ve proposals for consideration, then is the time to a their merits. But we can see no valid reason to amend 18 22 prevent the President and Senate from even considering as what are regarded by most nations of the world as evas of gravity and importance.

RATIFICATION EYED

vascocial limitation of the scope of treaties would weaken the Cited States in international negotiations, it is incumbent on Adadiens to show definite and compelling need for it. That made by pointing to particular treaties not yet ratified or not ratitication, which rightly or wrongly are said to be

a cpropriate to urge that because Congress may pass, and doubtves wine dad laws, it should be deprived of legislative powers. If acas to which objections have been made are as bad as they Now presumably not be ratified.

van for lightly assuming that the President and two-thirds whom are bound by oath to support and uphold the Constiwy w subvert it.

ese amendments exhibit a fear of a "superstate" into which No sebe in danger of being absorbed.

such contentions, of course, is that the President and the ke a treaty which is repugnant to the spirit of the ConstituAs a power is not wholly unlimited. Treaties cannot violate specific > Constitution, nor can they subvert its essential nature.

er Hen suggested that there is no constitutional protection against airs rights of free speech, press, or religion.

socs dowa the years, however, have made it clear that the due-process - amendment applies to all Federal action making any amendesque abridgment by treaty or executive agreement of the essential vaated by the first 10 amendments unnecessary.

United States officials certainly would not knowingly advocate anything to de the protection for individual liberties within the United States; but, in y event, the Constitution as it now stands would preclude any treaty from aring the effect, however inadvertently, of impairing or abridging human erties within the United States.

CHANGE IN BALANCE

There may be room for doubt as to the merits or demerits of a particular eaty: but those issues can be fully dealt with by the Senate in deciding whether v ratify it. But a constitutional amendment which would prohibit the United States from dealing with the problems of human liberties at an international el, and which would deny to the United States powers of sovereignty possessed revery other nation, would have the most damaging effects.

Te American Bar Association proposal would place a different and even per limitation on the treaty power. It would limit the effective scope of treaties to those matters which are within the delegated legislative powers ¿venzress, by providing that no treaty could have effect as domestic law except ch legislation enacted by Congress in the exercise of its delegated legislative

This proposed denial to the Federal Government of a large part of the treaty >wer granted by the Constitution and repeatedly exercised since the beginning f the Republic, would produce a change in the balance between Federal and State power.

The ABA's proposal that treaties, after ratification, require approval of both Bases of Congress is particularly objectionable, as it places a second hurdle fr treaties before they have domestic effect. The delays and difficulties inherent sch a two-stage process would make other nations reluctant to enter into bates with the United States.

is is not to suggest that all treaties should be self-executing. There are laws viding for participation by the House in cases where such participation is appriate, without making participation a rigid requirement in all cases.

There are three such ways:

THREE METHODS SEEN

1 A treaty may, and frequently does, provide that it is not self-executing, makregistation by both Houses necessary to implement it through appropriations and other ways;

The Senate, with its power to impose reservations, can insist that a treaty be self-executing;

In an extreme case, there is the undoubted power of Congress to check the President and Senate by subsequent statute to override the treaty so far as its ✰ on domestic law is concerned.

Under the Bricker resolution in particular, such treaties of friendship, comre, and navigation as America has with Italy, Ireland, Colombia, Denmark, Ind Greece would be impossible. American participation in such humanitarian adies as the Slavery Convention of 1926 would be ruled out.

I would prevent the United States from accepting its own so-called Baruch posals for the international control of atomic energy. It would prevent the ed States from ever accepting John Foster Dulles' scheme for an internaBral striking force to guard against Soviet aggression.

nder it. the United States could not have taken Texas or Hawaii into its great ... The President could not have traded the overage destroyers for the Crazic bases in the Western Hemisphere in the last war.

What these amendments would do, in effect, would be equivalent to throwing the baby with the bath water. While they would undoubtedly automatically L.. such treaties as have to do with the U. N. and with human rights, they would the same time make any treaty-making next to impossible.

The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Whereupon, at 6:30 p. m., the subcommittee was recessed to be evened at 10 a. m., Thursday, February 19, 1953.)

TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m. in room 44. Senate Office Building, Hon. William Langer, chairman of the mittee, presiding.

Present: Senators Langer, Dirksen, and Smith of North Carolina. Also present: Senators Watkins and Bricker.

Wayne H. Smithey, subcommittee counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

I have some letters and telegrams here which I would like to have le a part of the record. The record will show the names and dresses and briefly which side they are on.

Te CHAIRMAN. Will you call the first witness?

Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Frank Ober, the committee on peace and law f the American Bar Association.

STATEMENT OF FRANK B. OBER, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND LAW, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, BALTIMORE Mr. OBER. For the record my name is Frank B. Ober, 640 Mathieson ding, Baltimore, Md. I have practiced law for 40 years within

miles of this room.

I want to speak very briefly about the first sentence of the proposed ment as formulated by the American Bar Association. In the place, let me say that when Senator Bricker opened the hearings ast spring, he said a great constitutional issue was at stake. I think has never been more plainly stated than by the Secretary of State The pointed out that the treatymaking power is liable to abuse that treaties can be used to override our Constitution and to -t the rights of the citizens under the Bill of Rights.

Now, that is the reason, Mr. Chairman, that I think the first sene which makes a treaty that conflicts with the Constitution of the Ted States is of such tremendous importance. Let me just refer briefly to a succession of events that seemed to me to emphasize dangers because some of the witnesses who have testified or who testify will say, "Let's wait until some damage has been done." Mr. Chairman, you will remember that one of the first things the United Nations did was to have that Declaration of an Rights. Now that declaration, which was supposed to be ly a statement of aspirations, has been in effect some years. to call your attention to the fact that in the United Nations