Imagini ale paginilor
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

ways been protected by our Constitution. We have not seen specifi- TUNES il concerned with section f of the resolution relating to executive

PRAIAN SC agreements and I wish to state that we prefer to rely upon the sound juegmelle ne this comunittee and the Senate of the United States in regani lo that portion of the resolution.

SI VOT The controversy surrounding that portion of the resolution which sechs tv limt the treaty-making power is largely an argument be

copata tween law vers as to a proper interpretation of the Constitution. We can harili classify ourselves as authorities on constitutional law so

I. the its 10 irakin part in this purely legal controversy. However, I should likt to point out to the committee that no single opponent of this reso

2nd bir

of the lunion has ativocated the adoption of internal or domestic law by teaty. The controversy is rather one involving a difference of opinion thema da to it hether or not a proper interpretation of the Constitution would com

ma permit such a result. The opinions of many distinguished lawyers on

sorder This proposition appear to be in disagreement so that we must all : Brid levogize very real doubt exists. And I think there is really the put the (of the situation, Senator. In the face of such doubt and since timp all pertenced parties appear to oppose legislation by treaty, it seems from that the only intelligent course to pursue is the safe course. We should bacon non gamble with our precious rights and liberties by permitting the do continued wistence of any system that threatens their destruction. *endor

the tests who appeared in opposition to Senate Joint Resolu- met tion it in the Congress appeared to protest the approval of that loc Ponturion on the principal ground that it was not necessary. The tal ma men der Zechariah Chafee, Jr., specifically, and other wit- teme

cap altrepotically trated the decision of the California Court of Ap- 1.200 pou m the cave very lightly because of its subsequent reversal, and

med l Porte de mii de popurently because they also considered it bad law. Bi Homeleti in doing Professor Chafee seemed to admit that if a lat the Puedes pede Woesteld reestablish the decision of the California Court unis of life then constitutional amendment would be desirable. Wer maulant heat stelle a spurst of action is too much like locking the barn Bill of Home Hile che per las been stolen and we suggest to this committee ad Ilont ile that would now be definitely and effectively locked by the sale 11. Soint Resolution 1.

Tiramill, ** ville pour position, Senator. While I am a member oleh The State of Kansas and also the State of California, and 100% weleens of itutional law, and not wishing to enter that puently beloxicamenti ire merely wanted to point out to the commune litter than one of our organization and the fact that it does seem, till live in the prize limitations are concerned, to have gotten down to a question out which hymen are properly qualified to express an opender, stund this is that there is a doubt. Everybody can see that. Distinguendo la nors have disagreed on it, and since there is doubt, just don't take any chances

Senator Ditutivi That is a very clear and succinct statement, and We thank you

Mi: Do t'n. Thank you, sir.

Senator Duikpi, Trio next witness is Mr. George P. Delaney of the American Federation of Labor. Is Mr. Delaney here?

(There was no loponse.)

Senator Dirksen. 'Is Mr. James Watt of the Christian Science Committee on Publication here? Mr. Watt, will you come forward, please?

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


[ocr errors]



OF THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION Mr. Wart. I have a brief statement that I would like to read. Senator Dirksen. Mr. Watt, will you first give your full name and 2. pes and your occupation to the reporter? Jr. Warr. My name is James Watt. I am the manager of the shington, D. C., office of the Christian Science Committee on Pub

**on, with offices in the Christian Science Building, 1601 I Street IT. I am authorized by the Christian Science Board of Directors, * gorerning board of the Christian Science Church, to make the waiting statement regarding Senate Joint Resolution 1 proposing amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the king of treaties and executive agreements, introduced in the 83d gress by Senator Bricker of Ohio. Te strongly support the basic purposes of Senator Bricker's resolu

We believe the importance of protecting the Constitution and se Bill of Rights from being undermined by international agree-ts, not made in accordance with our constitutional procedures, kot be too strongly emphasized. While we are not prepared at preent time to endorse the exact wording of the resolution, we pporting the position that some protective action is required Lihat a thorough discussion of the question is needed in order that the issues involved may be clearly understood and considered. It may be that refinements in the wording of this resolution should nade. We would not object to this as long as the purpose of pro!! the freedom and rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the ted States and the Bill of Rights is attained. We are aware that these basic rights are threatened because as the tution now stands, it does not prevent them from being changed

treaty, a change which even Congress itself is prevented from Ang under the Bill of Rights. We feel deeply that these inherent recious rights and freedoms must not be overlaid with a pattern

a ternational so-called rights drawn to suit the concepts of more :01 nations with varying and antagonistic concepts. We urge

it be made impossible to give up our concept of inherent rights quiesce to the premise that rights are conferred on the indi..! by government and hence can be taken away by government.

Telike others who have already given eloquent and comprehensive -2101: v before this committee in support of a constitutional amend

relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements, rely concerned:

Over the situation revealed by Mr. John Foster Dulles, now riary of State, in an address before the American Bar Association Tear, when he said:

rratymaking power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse. Treaties ternational law and also they make domestic law. Under our Consti*Traties become the supreme law of the land. They are, indeed, more e than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not

to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. one, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the

Gasernment or to some international body, and they can cut across the sseo the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights.



[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(2) That the State Department has officially said: "There is no reak longer any real difference between 'domestic and foreign affairs."

(3) That the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in his dissent in the Steel Seizure case advanced the doctrine

L that the United Nations Charter and other international treaties and commitments give the President of the United States authority to seize private property. Such a doctrine would give the President no1-icial only powers not granted to him by the Constitution but powers ever in denied him by the Constitution.

These are but a few of the reasons we are impelled to support the purpose of Senator Bricker's resolution and to urge Congress to take suitable action promptly.

Let me discuss briefly another threat to individual and religious freedom which has not been explored so far in these hearings. By { ** joint resolution of Congress, we have become members of WHO—thell United Nations World Health Organization. Under the constitution of WHO, by which we are bound, regulations having the force of both and international and domestic law can be adopted without approval, no to mention legislation by our Congress. In fact, a set of internationa't, a sanitary regulations drawn up by WHO went into effect in the Unitecte States on October 1, 1952, without ratification by the Senate or legis lative action by Congress. United Nations officials refer to the cod in as a "new kind of world law." The United States Public Healt] Service is even now busily engaged in revising the administrativ regulations (which have the force of domestic law) to conform wit] these new international regulations. In doing this, we are told b: the present Chief of Foreign Quarantine Division of the United State Public Health Service that a regulation which my office worked ou several years ago with the former Chief to give recognition to religiou rights, is to be eliminated.

Here is a concrete example of how religious rights, protected by ou own domestic regulations, are being threatened by the ability of Government agency to change domestic law to make it conform wit] international agreement. For the detailed story of this situation, would like to introduce into the record a reprint of an article title "Pattern for Cumpulsory Medication," which ran in the Septembe 26, 1952, issue of the Christian Science Monitor, and an editorial fror the same issue, titled "Stop, Look, and Question.” The editoria concludes:

This newspaper does not wish to be alarmist. As we understand it, WHO III alone among United Nations agencies in its power to legislate for member na tions. We believe that the rights of individuals and States under the America Constitution can be protected from infringement by an international organiz: tion or through treaties. But the situation now precipitated by WHO indicate that a properly framed constitutional amendment may be required.

The State Department has attempted to rebut this article, but it our view, their statement, which I also submit for the record, suk stantially strengthens the position we take and confirms the danger we point out. This view is set forth in a memorandum which I woul i like to have included in the record as part of my statement, and shall not read it, but I do want to point out just 2 or 3 paragraph that point up what we mean. On page 3 of this memorandum, in th fourth paragraph, we say:

A major weakness is the use of the word “government”

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

it is the major weakness in the State Department's so-called

uttal Dingh it is synonymous with the executive branch of the Government. The * "rebuttal" is based upon the assumption that it is sufficient for the - nie branch to pass upon WHO regulations, and if satisfied with them,

i them to become law. This, of course, is exactly the development the 18.145 article and editorial deplores. si on page 5, the first paragraph: Le State Department memorandum repeatedly points to the close coopera

of the State Department, the Public Health Service, and WHO, as if this * a reassuring state of affairs. Actually, of course, this is precisely the

of affairs which has caused concern. The danger has been that the Public rii Service would seek to accomplish through WHO. what it could not acwish through Congress.

+ points I would like to emphasize of our memorandum. Vr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity of appearing in sup

of the intent and purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 1. We hope -Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate will draw report favorably, and urge enactment to the Congress, a carefully el joint resolution that will protect inviolate the basic constitual rights of the citizens of the United States, which can become an ortant and valued amendment to the Constitution of our beloved ntry. Thank you very much. Senator Dirksex. Thank you, Mr. Watt. In connection with the

mnents you submit to fortify your statement, let me see if we can * those in proper order. There is one here mimeographed, entitled

Nature and Purpose of the WHO International Sanitary Regu


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. Wart. That is the State Department memorandum.

tor DIRKSEN. I presume in the nature of things that that probrought to be submitted first right after your statement. Mr. Watr. Well, I supported our statement with a Monitor article. nator Dirksen. I was going to let those follow in then, includc. of course, the critique. ifr. Warr. Except that this one is supposed to be a rebuttal of the wator DIRKSEN. You mean this is the rebuttal ? Vr. W'art. Yes, so the Monitor article should come first.

bator DIRKSEX. Very well, then, there is submitted for the record, 1 the Friday, September 26, 1952, edition of the Christian Science itor, an article entitled “Pattern for Compulsory Medication” by sam R. Frye, United Nations correspondent of the Christian wyce Monitor. Mr. Warr. And an editorial.

nator DIRKSEN. There is also submitted from the same edition of -hristian Science Monitor an editorial entitled "Stop, Look, and zon." There is also submitted in connection with Mr. Watt's

ent-is this a résumé or is this the complete fr. W'art. It is supposed to be a rebuttal. It is the actual docu

• from the State Department. viator DIRKSEN. I see. It is a statement by the State Department or the caption "The Nature and Purpose of the WHO Internaal Sanitary Regulations." And there is also submitted then a

[ocr errors]

If abu



[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

legisla Eiteta Ort


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(2) T


Who authored Stat longer a

Teljus States

ki principal offices of the that t] comm

harth, which includes the stream seize

1 only denie

ook Dev ΤΙ,

A september 26, 1952] pur



Fich fr

to be a set with the active support of the

A, now is seeking universal adop

an w for travelers as part of new ate medical regulations. This law nation of persons crossing inter

*e the fir a well lead to the elimination of such

ar Rent Si erist. Among such exemptions are grounds.

FC saade the Christian Science Monitor disAs of this problem, which, this newspaper

at to individual and religious freedom. as it is felt, is the very wide latitude and

the proposed WHO regulations leave to indi

es and offices. These regulations in many
werede the laws of individual nations without
eature or of electorate.
la red Nations correspondent of the Christian Science

Vzw York—The United Nations World Health Organization, as is bei
Distance of the United States, has launched what one official Feis rec

sor worldwide smallpox vaccination of travelers.
Itulations authorizing vaccination and other restrictions on

ki is due to go into efîect in some 65 countries—virtually all slay are Tirtain—on October 1.

are described by their sponsors as an effort to establish uni- vist of th in medical precautions against the spread of quarantinable diseases station Lizarr to another. The ramifications of this effort are very far- tertain

is refer to the code as a new kind of world law. 1 ... *tember of WHO unless specifically rejected or modified by the country to the libera in anons automatically have the effect of domestic law in each country

They need not be enacted by the congress or parliament of any one serer ***

WIDE POWERS VESTED Neme of the 115 articles of the code are permissive--that is, outline actions *ntry may, but need not, take. Others are mandatory. In each case, scheele,

pement is placed directly in the hands of health administrations. brive the regulations have been accepted and have gone into effect, no individmal apuntry which is a member of WHO may repeal or alter them in any way, in whole or in part, on its own responsibility. The portions that are mandatory must be complied with indefinitely, or until the majority of WHO votes other. wise. Sixty-nine countries—including nearly every non-Communist country in the world—are active members.

Critics of WHO point out that as a result, this U. N. specialized agency has assumed the right not only to legislate on behalf of sovereign governments in its field but to deny those governments any control over the legislation once it is on the books.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

in their

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


at there

« ÎnapoiContinuați »