« ÎnapoiContinuați »
Itemtective, a treaty of friendship, for example,
in a foreign state? Is the usual provision *-courts to be nullified because the courts
is an intention seems, at first, unlikely, read10.-st the qualified wording on rights in section
an originate only in fundamental misand relations of sovereign powers, and
. The Constitution does not vest,
American citizens within an alien sovce privileges of its courts, ownership of
The grant is always by grace of the sovcan be no denial or abridgment, where the 5- rerent to assure. en for its citizens, usually by reciprocal en
otherwise they cannot demand. The er deem "unlikely” is impossible. Royne sorcher alarm, and the authors once more conIS It reads:
e or permit any foreign power or any international
arrol, or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United posts enumerated in this Constitution or any other
the domestic jurisdiction of the United States.
Mas the l'nited States from making any agreement with
at der which any nation, or any international body Twith pati "supervise, control, or adjudicate” any of the pro
the limitation would run against action thus taken for
prevention of wars and the promotion of commercial
* Vas of joint concern. The subjects prohibited go RVS *s they would presumably include property rights (e. g.,
***). The domestic jurisdiction prohibition could A Pts for joint action a number of the functions which Las has found it advantageous to handle by joint action. es not have all the characteristics of crystal; and
illusion to the due-process clause would seem i neognition that destructive potential inhere in er advocated; and reveals the authors' apprehen
of the constitutional amendments will frustrate Gin the authors pay a tribute, which I venture
Hyrtions in the first and last sentences must, howtitikia shergh an added proviso: “by means of treaties or
TRY "might have afforded slight justification. VioLid winst the orderly and deliberative legislative process,
Seal of inhibitions the statement envisages will Ningtherly an exception, they will vanish before joint skirtingets and Executive, in the traditional manner.
Nations which, in the authors' views, will be rendered
lizade for the presecution and prevention of wars; promotion *********** 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 10 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; I. Protection of salmon; 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 principe applicable to migratory birds; but, with that possible exception, The burden rests upon those who allege that the preventive and reIedial measures they contemplate cannot be encompassed within the aj-lative area. And that is where we find the International Moneary Fund Agreement.
Concern expressed for the effects upon this agreement reflects the thors' further misapprehensions. They say:
Inder section 2, the United States could not take part in the International Wbrary Fund Agreement. Provisions such as the article barring a change in 2- par values of the respective currencies of fund members except under speci. *** circumstances, submit domestic matters to international control. The Presi* was explicitly authorized by the Congress to accept these articles of agree
* on behalf of the United States. By joining the fund, the United States thus oped not to exercise one of its powers without the concurrence, under certain
omstances, of an international organization. While the Congress retains its titutional power “to coin money (and to] regulate the value thereof,” the
faith of the United States is pledged internationally to a measure of arance 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
Intitution; and it is believed that this power is nondelegable.
e 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).
A: AIS virious provisions for proposals of 4* i Temental disequilibrium," as does *Walce of all these provisions, and its own ! it in section 5 of the enabling act
Anthorized such action, neither the President be illo tecaf of the United States * * *
Mirce in the par value of the United States dollar *)nini XX. section 4, of the Articles of Agreement 2. V general change in par values under article IV,
rien do not seem to have studied the statute
ant that I would here make is that what they Bring impossible was accomplished through the
Naron, Little resolution represent imperative constitus'e'il est too multifarious for enumeration, and so Devenir implications as to defy appraisal
It is het wonder that, in their defensive efforts, the trorsage sent have been misled into grievous error. "Con**Ngreement through which the transfer of 50 Gestionary war materiel to a nation at war was effected, they
Hevaliend? : Arbrican candidate for President at the time, supported
24 ***** *unced. The hunt opports with the record. Immediately following the *****, Nr. Willkie said:
the part mal undoubtedly approve of the program to add to our naval and wire to visiance given to Great Britain. It is regrettable, however, Bhout ****if did not deem it necessary in connection with this proposal to *************mural of Congress or permit public discussion prior to adoption.
the f**que mueve a right to know of such important commitments prior to ait rire l'ing made. We must be extremely careful in these times when the nerole in the world is between democracy and totalitarianism not to Peminate or dentroy the democratic processes while seeking to preserve efektet
It is the contention of the totalitarian rulers that democracy is not etlerine We must prove that it is effective by making full use of its permainais Congress has constitutional functions as important and Sitems those of the Chief Executive.?
Two days later, he said:
In disenssing 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,
"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 witbout enn. sulting ('ongress. It is a hazardous proceeding."8
And on the following day: "Within the last few days the United States has transferred 50 destroyers to Qeemat Britain in return for air and naval bases,” said the Presidential
New York Times, Sept. 4, 1940, p. 1, col. 3. . Op elt., Sept. 6, 1940, p. 16, col. 3.
Now leaving out of account the advantages or disadvantages of the trade, the met bod 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 de cided 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.”
I hare 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 bere 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.
Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Gunther who asked to be heard today has subzetted a telegram requesting permission to file a written statement.
The CHAIRMAN. We will notify him to get his brief filed not later man March 4.
Mr. SMITHEY. This is a telegram from former Dean Manion of
Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 24, 1953.
United States Senate, Washington, D. O.: Przet that speaking engagements here will prevent my presence in Wash
o to testify before your distinguished committee in its hearings on Senr- Joint Resolution No. 1. In lieu of my oral testimony will you please in
in the official record the following statement from me: "I am convinced that a constitutional amendment is necessary to protect
zal rights, States rights, and the independence of the United States from > breatened supremacy of treaty law. -- my judgment the most concise and appropriate language for such an
oment is that proposed to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Peace Law Committee of the American Bar Association. To meet its objective Szendment should provide that any provision of any treaty or executive gent which conflicts with the Constitution of the United States shall
*Op et., 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.
You will find down here that one of the worst things that can happen in the Congress is this matter of delay and dilatoriness. We 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 ? Mr: SMITHEY. That is Mrs. Alfred Mudge, of the YWCA. The ('ILAIRMAN. Did she previously announce she wanted to testify? Mr; SAUTHEY. We notified her that she could be heard today.
The ('ITAIRMAN. Tell her to be here on the 4th day of March if she Wim to be heard.
Mr: SMITHLEY. All right, Senator.
I Thermpon, at 2: 15 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene ** M., Wednesday, March 4, 1953).