Imagini ale paginilor
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Bulletin of August 15, 1952, it was stated, and I am quoting this 202 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 100 a adopted, to confer jurisdiction on this international court to de- _dent, termine 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 at judges from other countries who have no conception of our inde- che pendent judiciary but think only of the judges as an arm of the political government.

Enough on the question of dangers, if it please the court. It 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 las 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 treaty- ** making power. On the one hand, in your treatymaking power the ti proposed treaties are proposed by a committee of some 60 foreign nations, not a single representative of that committee being elected Cha by our people. Now that is the way they are proposed, as contrasted, of course, with the usual way of our constitutional amend 30td ments 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 ter to ratification whatsoever of a treaty by three-fourths of the legislat tures or the conventions in the State. So I say if you want a world quest government or something like that it should be by the deliberate act of the American people and not drifting into it by this methodset proposed in this way at Lake Success and not ratified by the adth legislatures.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the test

[ocr errors]


:3 inher not

are me

[ocr errors]

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

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

I am not going into the arguments that have already been made on e fact that Congress has already a great many delegated powers,

commerce power, and so forth. What I want to emphasize is Dething I have been a little bit worried about in connection with ** treaty amendment, and that is the question that has bothered ce from the beginning as to whether the Supreme Court will take

-Jetion over the question of whether a treaty conflicts with the L-titution or whether they will say that that is purely a political ter that the coordinate branches of government should follow. Till see, the moment you put in there that there have to be laws - renting, then those laws necessarily are subject to the is the one point I want to make. Let me just point out the

in why I am so dreadfully concerned about this one point, whether *** Supreme Court would take jurisdiction. I am talking now about

0:e clause to which there has been most objection, the "which” Bie; that is, the clause saying that Congress must pass implement

legislation within its delegated powers, and I am making the 70 which I think has not been made, at least not very fully, and it is that I fear that unless you provide that there have to be laws Tih will stand the test of constitutionality that the Supreme Court Pray 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, T! is a very recent case. The sentence is, "The vestment of the Pneral Government with the powers of external sovereignty did not --d upon the affirmative grant of the Constitution." see, Mr. Chairman, what that means, that that is the doc- that there is inherent power in the Federal Government, and,

-refore, that is not derived from the Constitution. Now are we : to assume, are we going to assume, that the Supreme Court of

Inited States is going to, analogous to Marbury v. Madison, say .: they have power to hold a treaty unconstitutional if all we say

at a treatv shall not be contrary to the Constitution? They may it is a political question. I co back to Curtiss v. Wright for the reason that your Marbury v. Laune consists of setting down the Constitution coming from the

ar authority and the Congress, which is the agent of the people, te inconsistency between the two.

anat they are an in- for suppo Supreme Court of the wri her to hold the treaty Tark va -5 must be followed by 3mou, ger stitutionality, then we

SIIS JAM seseussion on the treaty. QIY DA

weh I just give for refit in the case of United

Mrs. Lu

Bulletin of August one sentence:

No less than 25,25 have been received by That is in 1 ye

: it has been over 1. ous political pro our enemies by tional body. be all lost at L

Let me call the statement Covenant of mitment by treaties that criminal co

I think i there will adopted, termine t form it

ve the plain terms of a treaty

s I am


...ban, is that you put in a Dhughte

sistent with the Consti- ; Do fou h -But that is monitory on the fa king. We have in our State Var we provisos which our courts mitihesthe other branches of the

e courts and so one of the verstand ** this so-called “which" clause al society

I have been willing to accept tapters

s right from the beginning to
will pass on it.
et back in 1950, 3 years ago, I I

it. I said in the amendment is

to pass on constitutionality, you prestaju ur way because it says that there i vand the test of constitutionality. sy doen y much for your patience in hear- Sl'nited S

says the can be i

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

man, a judges pende politic

En. seen first Αη. tre:

[ocr errors]

the objectives to be sought by this make


Ta resolu

[ocr errors]

til ment to be sure that it is enforceable

of the to

2ent of it?

the other

[ocr errors]



or in favor of the amendment I have

object of supporting the one part that ress on it and will not say it is a po potion of SI say that I am entirely sure that there's

the "which" clause, which says that there sation, which necessarily, of course, has wu work out the amendatory language

nish respect to Senate Joint Resolution i? es I have in mind is the language of the

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

. Son as it says that there must be implement

around the thing that is worrying me, beCar there must be laws, necessarily those laws *** W the Constitution, so I say that that is a major

samanber of I an an


in my mind for supporting the American Bar amendment, inng the last clause as written. IP CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ober. Mr. OBER. Thank you, gentlemen.


The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Lucas, you represent the Daughters of the 1. erican Revolution?

Mrs. Lucas. Yes. I am Mrs. James C. Lucas, executive secretary,
Se onal Society, Daughters of the American Revolution.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have copies of your statement?
Mrs. Lucas. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. May we have them?
Serator Watkins wishes to inform you that he is sorry he cannot
af to hear your statement. He has another hearing.
Mrs. Lucas. I understand, Senator.
I represent 2,737 chapters, with over 171,000 members. The objec-
Tes of the national society are patriotic, historic, and educational.
The 61st Continental Congress of the National Society, Daughters
f the American Revolution, passed a resolution endorsing the Bricker
Whereas, article 6, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the United States
* Wes that a treaty becomes the supreme law of the land ; and
i betras there now exist many conventions or treaties already passed by the

and Nations General Asembly, which, if granted treaty rights, will nullify si nestitution of the United States : Ruagired, That the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, Ingress to adopt Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 to prevent treaties becombeszpreme law of the land ; Derslerd, That every Daughter attending this Congress considers herself and to go home and make known to her two Senators the urgent need of the on of this resolution. Iso adopted was a resolution opposing world government: Thereas the Charter of the United Nations was adopted upon the thesis that B: Five, and the other nations which should sign the charter, should *2.2 their individual sovereignty as free and independent nations, combining ** tiorts and, under certain conditions, their armaments in a joint effort to *5 and maintain peace: Lowosired, That the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution,

that interpretation of the United Nations Charter and reiterate their 300 to any attempt to bring about, through the United Nations or by any

ordium, a world government or a partial world-government organization. Iztge your subcommittee to approve Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 von as possible. Top Daughters of the American Revolution have a special interest mtion 2 of the proposed amendment. My testimony will be limited at section. ** #rtion 2 of Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 is adopted and ratified

required number of State legislatures, three-fourths of the 48, ... it would require an amendment to the Constitution before the md States could surrender its sovereignty to any world or real government.

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


[ocr errors]

I believe that tion of Mr. Bricker's proposal is essential in any so lilleliniteti iesire to protect the freedom of the American people to me fidis teus che treacy-making power.

in je in ew years after the end of World War II, some 23 State i Silius llei oriai zeii Congress to hasten the day of world

govern17:s det uit was inspiri by impractical idealists, unthinking Paddlestic si titsi dild ouers whose motives were less honorable.

Lapset je l'augiters of the American Revolution pioneered Itine det i mere vided by patriotic and veterans' organizations in an baridit nod38144pped gan to warn against imminent dangers jeopardizing in tietoti pieneeni v through any form of world government.

(zie Nackegiatures which passed world-government resolut's: Will their action. This would indicate that the ti bionde 'not fer perican people are opposed to world govern


Dingependence of action.

**Belies Ly that 6 other States either stopped the kannt res egne or in the committee, and 2 have out- azad it ita grynt werld government, the States of Delaware te

l's would indicate that the vast majority of a Innot speaker op pad to world government or the loss of the Merrer, by the fact that essential attributes in

poppen now be surrendered by treaty or executive

Sysines of the Atlantic Union form of world #t party Pilipino fact that an amendment to the Constitutional

i for their resolution. Some of the United Worlds video pipe same procedure. But the Constitution at

popis prohibition against a surrender of national

Toyota Pruty adoption. As we read the American Bar et Terrsölution, it contains no express prohibition Born

we in regional or world government by treaty. ! WWE to American sovereignty is presented by those W***l approach to world government through the United Tin **** Isation for the United Nations is an organiza

my paratins that world government can and should be

* Imated Nations treaties and by flexible interpretation of lurer

. ief the Daughters of the American Revolution is that *** As perrignty is essential to the freedom of the American In the preservation of our constitutional republic. Our *********hon will continue to fight those who seek to destroy Amerivisas persoanelence for the sake of world government. We will conRoope oppupscase those who try to indoctrinate our children with the sweet chevalp now world citizens or citizens of the United Nations Water than American citizens.

The lighters of the American Revolution will continue to expose int 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 thablishment of our own union is cited as a precedent.

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

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

. The

[ocr errors]


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


« ÎnapoiContinuați »