Bulletin of August 15, 1952, it was stated, and I am quoting this one sentence:

No less than 25,279 communications alleging violations of human rights have been received by the Secretary General.

That is in 1 year, and in 4 or 5 years I think we can safely assume it has been over 100,000. Just think of this Pandora's box of poisonous political propaganda that will be presented on a silver platter to our enemies by this idea of making complaints before an international body. But, Mr. Chairman, you might say, "Well, that will be all lost at Lake Success."

Let me call your attention to the succession of events. That was the statement of aspirations. The next thing which comes is the Covenant of Human Rights, which is to make that a binding commitment by this Government. What comes next? Among the 200 treaties that are being proposed is a treaty creating an international criminal court, jurisdictions somewhat unknown.

I think is it fair to assume, Mr. Chairman, that in all probability there will be an effort made, if this Covenant of Human Rights is adopted, to confer jurisdiction on this international court to determine the rights of our citizens. Now that convention in the draft form it is now in by article XXXVII specifically and expressly says there shall be no trial by jury. It provides that our citizens can be tried overseas and by whom? A court, if it please the chairman, a court composed of all but one of foreign judges, including judges from other countries who have no conception of our independent judiciary but think only of the judges as an arm of the political government.

It

Enough on the question of dangers, if it please the court. seems to me that that shows the danger and the necessity of the first sentence, or something similar to that as proposed by the American Bar Association to prevent the conflict between the treatymaking power and the Constitution.

Now I should like to say this: Many of my friends and many good citizens are in favor of world government, world federalism, and this and that. I am against it. But my main point is that we should not drift into it and that we have provided in our Constitution that if our people who adopted the Constitution want something of that sort they can do it under the amending power.

Let me say briefly under the amending power, note the contrast between the amending power in the Constitution and the treatymaking power. On the one hand, in your treatymaking power the proposed treaties are proposed by a committee of some 60 foreign nations, not a single representative of that committee being elected by our people. Now that is the way they are proposed, as contrasted, of course, with the usual way of our constitutional amendments which are proposed by the Congress, two-thirds of each House. or by a constitutional convention called by the legislature.

Take the question of ratification. On the one hand, you have no ratification whatsoever of a treaty by three-fourths of the legisla tures or the conventions in the State. So I say if you want a world government or something like that it should be by the deliberate act of the American people and not drifting into it by this method proposed in this way at Lake Success and not ratified by the legislatures.

Just one further thought, and this is the second sentence of our propsed constitutional amendment. That sentence, as the chairman will Pengnize, is the sentence which provides that a treaty shall become fetive as internal law in the United States only through legislation the Congress which it could enact under its delegated powers in the sence of the treaty.

What I want to come to grips with is the one major objection that has been made, which is not the first part of this sentence because Lost everybody can see it is all right to have a treaty made non-selfecuting, so we are on a parity with other nations. What I want particularly emphasize, and I do not think it has been emphasized touched upon at all, is the last part of this sentence, the so-called ich" clause requiring them to act within their present delegated per, a tremendously important clause.

I am not going into the arguments that have already been made on he fact that Congress has already a great many delegated powers, the commerce power, and so forth. What I want to emphasize is ething I have been a little bit worried about in connection with treaty amendment, and that is the question that has bothered Le from the beginning as to whether the Supreme Court will take sdiction over the question of whether a treaty conflicts with the Constitution or whether they will say that that is purely a political Enter that the coordinate branches of government should follow. You see, the moment you put in there that there have to be laws plementing, then those laws necessarily are subject to the ConstiThis is the one point I want to make. Let me just point out the ason why I am so dreadfully concerned about this one point, whether the Supreme Court would take jurisdiction. I am talking now about. one clause to which there has been most objection, the "which" use; that is, the clause saying that Congress must pass implementlegislation within its delegated powers, and I am making the it which I think has not been made, at least not very fully, and at is that I fear that unless you provide that there have to be laws ich will stand the test of constitutionality that the Supreme Court y say they have no jurisdiction to hold a treaty unconstitutional. I was about to elaborate on that in a very few sentences. In the

place, let me quote you one sentence from Curtiss v. Wright, This a very recent case. The sentence is, "The vestment of the Feral Government with the powers of external sovereignty did not -nd upon the affirmative grant of the Constitution."

Now, you see, Mr. Chairman, what that means, that that is the docthat there is inherent power in the Federal Government, and, -refore, that is not derived from the Constitution. Now are we g to assume, are we going to assume, that the Supreme Court of United States is going to, analogous to Marbury v. Madison, say they have power to hold a treaty unconstitutional if all we say hat a treaty shall not be contrary to the Constitution? They may t is a political question.

Io back to Curtiss v. Wright for the reason that your Marbury v. In consists of setting down the Constitution coming from the

er authority and the Congress, which is the agent of the people, 1the inconsistency between the two.

Bulletin of August one sentence:

No less than 25,27 have been received by That is in 1 yes it has been over 1 ous political prot our enemies by tional body. ] be all lost at I. Let me call the statement Covenant of mitment by treaties that criminal co I think i there will adopted. termine t form it says the

can be t man, a judges pende politic

En seem first

that they are an inSupreme Court of the -ower to hold the treaty e must be followed by nstitutionality, then we

Escussion on the treaty- which I just give for reft in the case of United

→e the plain terms of a treaty

an, is that you put in a consistent with the Consti-But that is monitory on the ding. We have in our State provisos which our courts the other branches of the the courts and so one of the I have been willing to accept this so-called "which" clause ces right from the beginning to will pass on it.

ent back in 1950, 3 years ago, I it. I said in the amendment isto pass on constitutionality, you er way because it says that there stand the test of constitutionality. y much for your patience in hear

in the objectives to be sought by this

want to be sure that it is enforceable Savement of it?

y in favor of the amendment I have object of supporting the one part that and I say that I am entirely sure that the to pass on it and will not say it is a poin the "which" clause, which says that there gislation, which necessarily, of course, has tutionality. www you work out the amendatory language

with respect to Senate Joint Resolution 1?

I have in mind is the language of the

S as soon as it says that there must be implementSÃOK FOR Fot around the thing that is worrying me, be

say there must be laws, necessarily those laws with the Constitution, so I say that that is a major

in my mind for supporting the American Bar amendment, ing the last clause as written.

Le CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ober.
Mr. OBER. Thank you, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JAMES C. LUCAS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL SOCIETY, DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Lucas, you represent the Daughters of the Aerican Revolution?

Mrs. LUCAS. Yes. I am Mrs. James C. Lucas, executive secretary, National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have copies of your statement?

Mrs. LUCAS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. May we have them?

Senator Watkins wishes to inform you that he is sorry he cannot ay to hear your statement. He has another hearing.

Mrs. LUCAS. I understand, Senator.

I represent 2,737 chapters, with over 171,000 members. The objeces of the national society are patriotic, historic, and educational. The 61st Continental Congress of the National Society, Daughters the American Revolution, passed a resolution endorsing the Bricker mendment.

Whereas, article 6, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the United States *des that a treaty becomes the supreme law of the land; and

Whereas there now exist many conventions or treaties already passed by the Ted Nations General Asembly, which, if granted treaty rights, will nullify 2 Constitution of the United States:

Baired, That the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, Congress to adopt Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 to prevent treaties becomhe supreme law of the land;

Bored, That every Daughter attending this Congress considers herself ged to go home and make known to her two Senators the urgent need of the Aston of this resolution.

Also adopted was a resolution opposing world government:

Thereas the Charter of the United Nations was adopted upon the thesis that Bg Five, and the other nations which should sign the charter, should their individual sovereignty as free and independent nations, combining orts and, under certain conditions, their armaments in a joint effort to te and maintain peace:

Lired, That the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, d that interpretation of the United Nations Charter and reiterate their tion to any attempt to bring about, through the United Nations or by any medium, a world government or a partial world-government organization.

Irge your subcommittee to approve Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 soon as possible.

The Daughters of the American Revolution have a special interest tion 2 of the proposed amendment. My testimony will be limited that section.

ection 2 of Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 is adopted and ratified e required number of State legislatures, three-fourths of the 48, it would require an amendment to the Constitution before the ed States could surrender its sovereignty to any world or real government.

3/72-53-12

I believe that section 2 of Mr. Bricker's proposal is essential in any mendment jesigned to protect the freedom of the American people gainst abuse of the treaty-making power.

The irst few years after the end of World War II, some 23 State Jag saoires nemorialized Congress to hasten the day of world governnicat. This action was inspired by impractical idealists, unthinking Manamarians, and others whose motives were less honorable.

Agins mom the Daughters of the American Revolution pioneered 1 and aur were joined by patriotic and veterans' organizations in an xicacenal campaign to warn against imminent dangers jeopardizing nur nacenal severeignty through any form of world government. Of the 2 State egislatures which passed world-government resoluSlave resided their action. This would indicate that the vase majority of the American people are opposed to world governhe loss of our dependence of action.

"

As et ide, I got say that 6 other States either stopped the les vai en n the leg s'ature or in the committee, and 2 have out"Evda ops 3gy world government, the States of Delaware This would indicate that the vast majority of 1600 @ are opposed to world government or the loss of erred, however, by the fact that essential attributes cod" quere 2^ty may now be surrendered by treaty or executive Some proponents of the Atlantic Union form of world neet mogne the fact that an amendment to the Constitution dowed for their resolution. Some of the United World ex advocate the same procedure. But the Constitution at PeXPress prohibition against a surrender of national wvere. Dah tiaty adoption. As we read the American Bar a path Lo 20 pred resolution, it contains no express prohibition nenation in regional or world government by treaty.

grerest threat to American sovereignty is presented by those wood a gradual approach to world government through the United The American Association for the United Nations is an organizamaintains that world government can and should be oved by United Nations treaties and by flexible interpretation of 1. N. Charter. The position of the Daughters of the American Revolution is that on national sovereignty is essential to the freedom of the American sole and the preservation of our constitutional republic. Our gation will continue to fight those who seek to destroy American dependence for the sake of world government. We will conEue to oppose those who try to indoctrinate our children with the idea that they are now world citizens or citizens of the United Nations rather than American citizens.

The Daughters of the American Revolution will continue to expose the fallacies inherent in the world-government idea. The fundamental fallacy, of course, is that the people of the world now have so much in common that they can unite under one government. The establishment of our own union is cited as a precedent.

The fact is that the American colonists had a common language, A common concept of law, common political and economic institutions.