Derefore beyond the protection of our Federal Constitution, as the Constitution United States only among the nations contains the unique provision which sail treaties ratified by the United States Senate become the supreme law Land: Therefore be it wired. That the Twenty-seventh Women's Patriotic Conference on National Defense reminds Congress and our citizens that such schemes should be deied as treasonable and subtle attempts to persuade our great country to tut national suicide by destroying our national independence as declared in Rlution No. 24, United States independence in danger: Whenas events have justified the solemn warnings of the American Bar Assoin their resolution of September 20, 1950, which stated that the Draft mational Covenant on Human Rights was not in such form or of such content art be suitable for approval and adoption by the General Assembly of the United :sor for ratification by the United States of America; and 7-as the dangers of treaty law were clearly defined by Frank E. Holman, sident of the American Bar Association, in his address to Veterans of Wars at Yakima, Wash., July 10, 1952; and as article I of the North Atlantic Treaty pledges its members "to refrain er international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner stent with the purposes of the United Nations," thus becoming in effect a menting arm of the United Nations and a possible repetition of the present ton in Korea; and Thereas the text of the Japanese treaty recently ratified puts the United *: within the orbit of the objectives of the International Covenant on Human and also the Potsdam agreements and thus within the jurisdiction of ted Nations regarding those programs; and -reas in the text of the Japanese treaty the United States agrees to accept teisions of the International Court of Justice regarding interpretation of treaty; and Whereas future decisions of the International Court of Justice and future s of the United Nations could accuse the United States of breaking this Pay or any other treaty or convention and acting in such a manner as to be treat to international peace and this could lead to direct action of United Es armed forces against persons and property of the United States, such rary action to be called an international police action to preserve world and hereas in several States recent manueuvers of the United States Army, actas agents of the armed forces of the United Nations have forcibly captured prisoned local mayors and other public officials and have taken over s, schools, and newspapers for the duration of such maneuvers (see *Dertown, N. Y., Daily Times, August 21, 1952); and evas such practice maneuvers would be an extravagance and an out15 is invasion of the military into the lives and liberties of our citizens unsot military maneuvers were a part of a plan not yet disclosed to the can people: Therefore be it Bed, That the 27th Women's Patriotic Conference on National Defense enres a great educational campaign to acquaint all citizens with these alarmfacts, such information now being imperative, since our continuing particiendangers our lives, our laws, and our liberties as the United States Conn expressly states foreign treaties become the supreme law of the land. Te have our resolution 13: Genocide Convention (reaffirmation). Thereas the Senate of the United States is asked to ratify as a treaty the en »d Genocide Convention designed to surrender to the United Nations, a ntrolled international body, the power to define and punish the newly Ted crime of genocide if and when the same shall be committed by the 2s of member nations of the United Nations, including citizens of the States of America, without regard to the country or jurisdiction wherein ense shall be committed; and terens under the Constitution of the United States treaties have the unique of "supreme law of the land" that they have in no other country; and as the said Genocide Convention does not relate to any matters which ernternational law, have been or are ordinarily made the subject of the negotiation and conclusion of treaties or international agreements between na tions; and Whereas the matters to which said Genocide Convention pertain are matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Government of the United States o America and the States of the Union under the Constitution and Bill of Rights and Whereas if ratified and approved and suffered to be enforced against the citi zens of the United States at home or abroad, will surrender to foreign contro the sovereign, inherent, and inalienable powers of "we the people," constituting the Government of the United States and turn over to an international commis sion and an international court the investigating, prosecuting, hearing, deciding and punishing of individual citizens for alleged violations: Therefore be it Resolved, That the 27th Women's Patriotic Conference on National Defense reaffirms its opposition to ratification of the said Genocide Convention, with o without reservations and that we place our faith in the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights for the security, defense, and preservation of this Republic and its sovereign people. Mr. Chairman, we have tried to say, as you have probably gotten on by now, that we are opposed in any way to any further treaty, thus bringing us into this great tangle that seems to have been done under the United Nations Charter, which by the way, I heard mentioned awhile ago by the distinguished Senator, where someone had said that it was possible that the Charter might be a treaty. I would like to quote here from your Director of the Legislative Reference Service Library of the Congress. He has been in since 1940. Dr. Ernest F. Griffith, in his book, Congress, Its Contemporary Role, says here on page 88 that— The San Francisco Charter is a treaty; entrance into the United Nations affiliates has usually required affirmative congressional action. This is quite an illuminating book, and it frightens those of us who have done some research and study over a period of years of what is happening to our form of government and to our Constitution under the sneaking attack of trying to change it by treaty. It is a long process by amendment of getting all the States to ratify but they found out that it is very easy to change it by treaty. People who are expecting our Congress to watch over that great Constitution of ours and the welfare of the people are confused when they hear about all of this, and those of us who have had the privilege of going into it to some extent, we are confused and frightened, especially when we read from the Director of the Records Library in his book on page 87, chapter 8, where he says: Moreover, treaties are relatively less important in international policy than formerly. Then he goes on over here on page 86: The Congress seems to be vying for some leadership as against the power of the President and he goes on to say he is not so much interested in getting your power but he would like to insist on a share in crucial decisions. We hope you will take the power you have and go forward with this great amendment that Senator Bricker has brought up. He goes on to say on page 87: The Executive must still reckon with the possibility that Congress will refuse to "go along" by nonratification of a treaty, by failure to appropriate funds, by nonimplementation of an executive agreement, by declining to confirm a Presidential choice. Then he says: Yah more dramatic have been efforts of Congress-the Constitution notwith2242—to guide international policy either by further stimulating or acceleratan aiready noticeable trend or by altering its course altogether. I would like to call your attention to this book. It is quite illuminatThen I should like to tell you, too, about the strangeness of the r. You see, in this country we have already been cited in the United As General Assembly, as on December 9, 1948, with the charge of de. So you can see that we are in a very serious position. I want to read to you just one or two quotes here from George Sington's Farewell Address. He says: Bet patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favored are liable to become „**ed and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and conhet → of the people to surrender their interests. know that the great question of today is whether the United es of America is to be governed in our international affairs and domestic laws by treaty law or by laws with the constitutional ass passed by the Congress of the United States. And we want to know whether we are to surrender our God-given s of freedom to a starry-eyed international tribunal who have no Scations for interpreting the laws of our country. In George Washington's Farewell Address he says: Iwards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your →→ happy state it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irappositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with e spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. Mr. Chairman, we have brought you these resolutions. We are not y way going to attempt to give you the language or the mechanics. Te are only hoping that you will pass this amendment to the Conition as rapidly as you have stated that you would like to, and we preciate very much this opportunity to come here and speak on it, we can assure you that when it is passed we will do all that we can Zur different States. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Howard. I just wonder why the azizations did not appear against the adoption of the United Nat ́s Charter. Mrs. HOWARD. Well, of course, I don't doubt that at all, but, of rse, I don't suppose very many people had a chance to appear on at. Don't you know, it has not been popular to appear against a lot things in the last 20 years. The CHAIRMAN. There were just two of us in the Senate that voted inst the United Nations Charter and I was one of them. Mrs. HOWARD. That is so appropriate, what I have just read you: Bal patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorites are liable to bepected and odious while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and fete of the people to surrender their interests. In't you see? Senator WATKINS. You are quoting George Washington now? The CHAIRMAN. Did you give your address? Ms. HOWARD. 1521 Monroe Street NW. ator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Senator Watkins. 8. vould like to extend my congratulations fo au on a difficult subject, and I appreciate tl sou very much. Keep in mind these res 38 large national patriotic women's organ e text witness is Mr. Ernest Schein. VJEST SCHEIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTE NAL LAW OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF TH : 1314 WASHINGTON, D. C. St the Bar Association of the District of its committee on international law. Ou housands of lawyers, many of whom are ex erested in the subject of international and werk closely in cooperation with the American ve also feel that we should like to have an ope present our views. where this morning already has indicated that opportunity before a final draft is submitted, e conferences of my friend Frank Holman esa Senate Joint Resolution 1. At such time er membership has had a further opportunity ...the provisions of such a resolution, to present e you mean to say you are going to poll your reative committee? Your committee will listen and study and then at is the gentlemen who are here now? representing the few gentlemen who will be inga report. I am interested in how much time you are going understand you are interested in that. It should re than the committee is going to take to consider verts that appear to be still reserved for consideration. How much time is that going to be? Probably 30 days. No; we will not give you 30 days. At the outside, a week. If you cannot drop in an amendment inside Whatever is given to us we will take. If a week is the you will want a report from our association, that is AMAN. What do you think, Senator Watkins and Senator you think a week is enough? WATKINS. I am not on the subcommittee. I am on the See I hope to see it pushed right along. It has been scussion before. RMAN. Do you think a week is ample, Senator Smith? vor SMITH. I am not on the subcommittee either. I was on the mittee last year. I don't know, I think the chairman is a little te if he thinks we are going to get down to putting this in final De a week. I would have no objection as far as I am concerned give the committee a little more time than that. Certainly it is portant subject we are dealing with, and while I think it to be pushed along as the chairman suggests CHAIRMAN. I think they have had this pending before them years. HEIN. Senate Joint Resolution 130, in our opinion, is different Late Joint Resolution 1. 2-CHAIRMAN. Well, you have had this problem before you for a Ze, and I am setting this for a week from today. We are going rough with this matter. SCHEIN. I believe that is an awfully short time. CHAIRMAN. It is a short time, but we are going to get action resolution. We are not going over into July with nothing -wut it. SCHEIN. There are many lawyers in this country who are to be heard on this subject. I do not know how they will be CHAIRMAN. We have telegrams here, dozens of them, and they ng to have a chance to be heard, but we are going to get rid of - are going to get through with it. There are a lot of other spending before this committee, important matters, and we are ogo along. There is going to be no delay. SCHEIN. I do not want to appear too persistent, Mr. Chairman, week, when Frank Holman has already indicated he is going into ference on Friday to change some of the language of Senate Joint on 1, does not give us a great deal of time to assemble an med opinion, which I am sure this committee is interested in. CHAIRMAN. Well, we will set it for a week from today for the If you can show good cause for extending the time we are to do that. HEIN. Thank you. CHAIRMAN. We will file these telegrams here in the record from as bar associations. They are all in favor of this with the tion of one. Will you see that that one person is entitled to be Mr. Smithey? There is also a protest here against the bill. ee that these people are notified so that they can appear in tion to it, the Church Peace Union? We will also put all these the record, together with the telegrams. The communications referred to are as follows:) WILLIAM LANGER, WICHITA, KANS., February 16, 1953. barman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: *s my understanding hearings are to begin Wednesday, February 18, on tal amendment re treaties and executive agreement. I very much stitutional amendment substantially in the form recommended by the an Bar Association. Your careful and thoughtful deliberation of this *dent will be appreciated. J. E. SCHAEFER. |