1st effective, a treaty of friendship, for example, car in a foreign state? Is the usual provision in courts to be nullified because the courts s an intention seems, at first, unlikely, readinst the qualified wording on rights in section es can originate only in fundamental misand relations of sovereign powers, and nology. The Constitution does not vest, American citizens within an alien sovthe privileges of its courts, ownership of The grant is always by grace of the sovere can be no denial or abridgment, where the y event to assure. cca for its citizens, usually by reciprocal enwich otherwise they cannot demand. The ehors deem "unlikely" is impossible. vosscus further alarm, and the authors once more conswers It reads: e or permit any foreign power or any international centrol, or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United toi States enumerated in this Constitution or any other n the domestic jurisdiction of the United States. * 102 bit the United States from making any agreement with es under which any nation, or any international body rear end "supervise, control, or adjudicate" any of the pro The limitation would run against action thus taken for Cwa N De prevention of wars and the promotion of commercial ༥IA ཅ eject res of joint concern. The subjects prohibited go 7 as they would presumably include property rights (e. g., Zecres cause). The domestic jurisdiction prohibition could Youx (@terrents for joint action a number of the functions which *he past has found it advantageous to handle by joint action. eres do not have all the characteristics of crystal; and en Bering allusion to the due-process clause would seem ognition that destructive potential inhere in Currently advocated; and reveals the authors' apprehenege of the constitutional amendments will frustrate www.dexgx 1 so, the authors pay a tribute, which I venture being a dad assertions in the first and last sentences must, howon, and, though an added proviso: "by means of treaties or ve sorts," might have afforded slight justification. Viowas against the orderly and deliberative legislative process, Spar i metal of inhibitions the statement envisages will disclose Chat, with hardly an exception, they will vanish before joint accion by the Congress and Executive, in the traditional manner. Following are actions, which, in the authors' views, will be rendered I. GENERALLY Action taken for the prosecution and prevention of wars; promotion of commercial and other peacetime objectives of joint concern. II. SUPPORTING ILLUSTRATIONS A. Supervision by international body of plants and production of atom bombs, submarine, or bacteriological weapons, in consideration of reciprocal concessions by Russia; B. Permission for large Allied military installations on our soil, and furnishing of bases and related authority to foreign powers or to NATO, and permitting administration; C. Acceptance of rights to supervise and control bases, areas maintained on foreign soil, and other privileges and exemptions, such as are enjoyed in Newfoundland, Bahamas, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Iceland, and Greenland; D. Trial of our own soldiers for criminal offenses, as in England, China, India, and France; E. Permission to foreign power to supervise and control military cemeteries, within the United States, free from local burial regulations: F. Would impair power to make agreements to deal with aggressors; G. Adherence to existing agreements for enforcement measures, against acts of aggression such as economic sanctions; H. Participation in the International Monetary Fund Agreement; J. Allocation of radio frequencies through the International Telecommunications Union; K. Quarantine against spread of disease pursuant to World Health Organization regulations. If serious expectations are still entertained concerning the first of these illustrations, they are attributable to incurable optimism. The protection of salmon may fall within the field of constitutional principle applicable to migratory birds; but, with that possible exception, the burden rests upon those who allege that the preventive and remedial measures they contemplate cannot be encompassed within the egislative area. And that is where we find the International Monetary Fund Agreement." Concern expressed for the effects upon this agreement reflects the thors' further misapprehensions. They say: Under section 2, the United States could not take part in the International Monetary Fund Agreement. Provisions such as the article barring a change in The par values of the respective currencies of fund members except under specied circumstances, submit domestic matters to international control. The Presiat was explicitly authorized by the Congress to accept these articles of agreebent on behalf of the United States. By joining the fund, the United States thus weed not to exercise one of its powers without the concurrence, under certain umstances, of an international organization. While the Congress retains its stitutional power "to coin money [and to] regulate the value thereof," the od faith of the United States is pledged internationally to a measure of forbearance in the exercise of this power. The language descriptive of the power of the Congress in respect of monetary system is taken from article I, section 8, clause 5 of the stitution; and it is believed that this power is nondelegable. The enabling act does not seem to fortify the authors' position. Article IV, section 1, of the agreement sets gold and the United States ar as the standard by which other currencies shall be measured. 'Bretton Woods Agreement Act (Statutes at Large, ch. 339, Public Law 171). utans various provisions for proposals of ases af tendamental disequilibrium," as does - nog mengance of all these provisions, and its own an eqressed it in section 5 of the enabling act Sus yaw authorized such action, neither the President rigucy Soal jo behalf of the United States *** nay Gange in the par value of the United States dollar seed for article XX. section 4, of the Articles of Agreement supove any general change in par values under article IV, 21 Dat objection do not seem to have studied the statute very cesty and the point that I would here make is that what they sexege or declaring impossible was accomplished through the CELY PROCESS et legislation, Seccons 3 and 4 of the resolution represent imperative constituPonal needs. They are too multifarious for enumeration, and so broad and complex in their implications as to defy appraisal. It is perhaps lutie wonder that, in their defensive efforts, the authors of the statement have been misled into grievous error. Concerning an historie agreement through which the transfer of 50 destroyers and other war materiel to a nation at war was effected, they assert that : Wende!! Wiki Republican candidate for President at the time, supported the street when announced. This hardly comports with the record. Immediately following the annoucement, Mr. Willkie said: The country will undoubtedly approve of the program to add to our naval and air bases and assistance given to Great Britain. It is regrettable, however, that the President did not deem it necessary in connection with this proposal to secure the approval of Congress or permit public discussion prior to adoption. The people have a right to know of such important commitments prior to and not after being made. We must be extremely careful in these times when the struggle in the world is between democracy and totalitarianism not to eliminate or destroy the democratic processes while seeking to preserve democracy. It is the contention of the totalitarian rulers that democracy is not effective. We must prove that it is effective by making full use of its processes. Congress has constitutional functions as important. and sacred as those of the Chief Executive." Two days later, he said: In discussing President Roosevelt's transaction with the British Government, Mr. Willkie said it was an arbitrary use of power, contrary to the spirit of American laws and institutions, adding that he favored all possible aid to the British short of war. "We "The trouble is that it establishes a dangerous precedent," he said. don't know what the President may trade away next without the consent of Congress. If he is reelected he may trade away the Philippines without consulting Congress. It is a hazardous proceeding." And on the following day: "Within the last few days the United States has transferred 50 destroyers to Great Britain in return for air and naval bases," said the Presidential nominee. New York Times, Sept. 4, 1940, p. 1, col. 3. Op. cit., Sept. 6, 1940, p. 16, col. 3. "Now leaving out of account the advantages or disadvantages of the trade, the method by which that trade was effected was the most arbitrary and dictatorial action ever taken by any President in this history of the United States. It has been compared to the Louisiana Purchase. In the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson considered the matter of a constitutional amendment. He finally decided it was not necessary and secured the approval of Congress. This trade is the most dictatorial action ever taken by any President. It does us no good to solve the problems of democracy if we solve them with the methods of dictators or wave aside the processes of democracy. "If I am elected President of the United States I will lean over backward to bring about restoration of democratic processes." 999 I have quoted Mr. Willkie at length, not alone to disabuse the minds of the authors of the statement, but rather to set forth a declaration of principles, that cannot be improved, that should guide our national and international relations, if liberty is to be maintained. A lifetime of study and observation has ever deepened the conviction that men have devised no political system, that, in its assurance of natural rights, transcends, or equals the representative. Its erosion must be resisted. No one can be more conscious of the magnitude of the problems here under discussion, and the inadequacy of his own effort, than this writer. That treaties and other international engagements can be more safely and effectively consummated and administered through the cooperation of the executive and legislative branches of the Government, I have sought to make its underlying theme. We then have the balance of efficiency with deliberation; neither must be sacrificed to the other. Executive usurpation of these prerogatives will spell eventual disaster. All of which is respectfully submitted. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much indeed. Are there any other witnesses to testify? Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Gunther who asked to be heard today has subitted a telegram requesting permission to file a written statement. The CHAIRMAN. We will notify him to get his brief filed not later an March 4. Mr. SMITHEY. This is a telegram from former Dean Manion of Notre Dame. The CHAIRMAN. Send him a warm telegram thanking him and have is filed with the proper heading. The telegram referred to is as follows:) Senator WILLIAM LANGER, Chairman Judiciary Committee, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., February 24, 1953. United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: Regret that speaking engagements here will prevent my presence in Washto testify before your distinguished committee in its hearings on Sen-- Joint Resolution No. 1. In lieu of my oral testimony will you please inde in the official record the following statement from me: "I am convinced that a constitutional amendment is necessary to protect nal rights, States rights, and the independence of the United States from threatened supremacy of treaty law. amy judgment the most concise and appropriate language for such an dment is that proposed to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Peace Law Committee of the American Bar Association. To meet its objective amendment should provide that any provision of any treaty or executive ment which conflicts with the Constitution of the United States shall *Op. cit., Sept. 7, 1940, p. 8, col. 1. be void and of no effect. It should further provide that no treaty or executive agreement shall become effective as internal law of the United States until implemented by legislation which would be valid in the absence of a treaty or treaties. "Such language would protect the constitutionally established jurisdiction of both the States and the Federal Government without impairing the foreign relations of the United States. "In the last 2 years I have spoken on this subject in practically every State in the Union. I know first hand that the rank and file of our citizens are seriously shocked to learn that a treaty may change or supersede the Constitution of the United States. Their reaction is invariably to demand that this dangerous siuation be corrected by appropriate constitutional amendment. I am deeply obliged to your honorable committee for its permission to include this statement in its record." CLARENCE MANION. The CHAIRMAN. I want the record to show that there is going to be no delay in this matter, Mr. Smithey. You notify everybody who wants to testify that we are going to finish taking testimony on March 4. If Secretary Dulles, Attorney General Brownell, and Secretary of Defense Wilson cannot testify before that time, they will have to file their statements because that is the day we stop. Will you see that every member of this committee gets a copy of all this testimony. We will set March 11 at 10 o'clock in the morning, which will give them nearly a week to read the record, as the time for the calling of a meeting of the subcommittee for what I hope to be final action on this matter. Members of the Bar Association Committee will take notice. In other words, we are not going to fool around with this thing at all. We are going to get rid of it. We You will find down here that one of the worst things that can happen in the Congress is this matter of delay and dilatoriness. want to get this thing cleaned up because we have other amendments of the Constitution to take up. What about this lady who was to testify tomorrow morning? The CHAIRMAN. Did she previously announce she wanted to testify? Mr. SMITHEY. All right, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. That will be the last day she will have. If she is not here then she will be barred, and that is true of anybody else. The meeting is adjourned. (Thereupon, at 2: 15 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Wednesday, March 4, 1953). |