Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956
File 043
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 043. 1956-08. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. May 30, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1442.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-08). Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 043. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1442

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 043, 1956-08, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed May 30, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1442.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date August 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States: This item is in the public domain in the United States and may be used freely in the United States. The item may not be in the public domain under the copyright laws of other countries.
Item Description
Title File 043
Transcript enatob Dirksen: In talking to you about the Bricker amendment it ii pertinent to stress something °f the Republican aspect of the matter. In the course of the convention Proceedings of the Republican party in Chicago in July, 1952, the chairman 'ecognized Senator Millikin of Colorado, chairman of the so-called Platform Committee. He announced that * Was prepared to read to the conven- n°n the Republican platform. It took V'ite a little time. First, of course, <tanie the preamble and then a statement on foreign policy — some observations on affairs in the Middle East j*d Yalta and United Nations - and "e", I think, rather unexpectedly, he ame upon a very interesting recital, "'cause this was the language used in he platform. He said, "We shall sec 0 't that no treaty or agreement with "''' countries deprives our citizens ''' tlie rights guaranteed them by the e<|t'ral Constitution." 'hat's pretty simple language: "We shall ice to it that no treaty or agrec- ent with other countries deprives 3"" citizens of the rights guaranteed *ern by the federal Constitution." e", the platform was adopted, can did;, Ites for the presidency and vice- lr<sidency were nominated, and then , "cut to the country with our Wedges. . "''en the nation voiced its approv- °> these pledges, it became our duty tarry out a covenant with the j Pie. Party platforms are often re- (> as campaign oratory, and just DS rUTIO^ I,""'"m P't-'lKes to the people without 'lvill" it, , I #■ 4.U„ ,l-.».„-~,* zust. 1* August, I '"'thing to stand on or to run on, "i my judgment you cannot make °8 in your heart the determina- Wv UK 1 in your mind the conviction, youre going to try to carrv out ^e pledges. . Vvus in pursuance of that — in ^I'^uince of a problem that has been \y n" steadily in the country since 0f j ' War II and since the inception Joh United Nations - that Senator 1,1."' W, Bricker of Ohio introduced . "'solution for a constitutional Widment This is conunonly re- rw to as tnc Bricker amendment, 3rn actua"y it is a proposal for an ^/'"liiient to the Constitution of the j,/'1'''' Stairs. It was first introduced ii } '^^fd Congress. We had two and \V]-tV * months of testimony and then flj ' s°me modification it came to the l„," "' the Senate. There it was well- '!''l», lt,<l and finally it lost 1>< single v°te v H* ' tOu sec, under the Constitution °-thirds vote of the members pres- ^s Forum News, August, 1956 SUPPORTING OPINIONS* SENATOR BRICKER stresses . . . "The revised language approved by the Senate Judieiary Committee . . . will absolutely prevent any form of world government; will prevent ratifieation of the dangerous human rights treaties; will prevent the socialistic treaties of the ILO from ever becoming domestic law; will prevent American citizens from being tried before an international criminal court; will prevent the President from going to war without a declaration by the Congress; will prevent the Presidenl from making domestic law by executive agreement; and will prevent congressionally-approved executive agreements from taking away powers reserved to the suites. . . . "So long as treaties are confined to matters of genuine international concern (and I am convinced thai the words "any provision of" do this) the repeal of Missouri vs. Holland is not a matter of any great importance. . . ." FRANK E. IIOLMAN, former President of the American Bar Association, states . . . "The first section of the new text is in the identical language of the first provision of the original American Bar Association text, approved by the House of Delegates in Febru ary, 1952. It is, in my opinion, a stronger text than the wording of Section 1 of Senator Bricker's resolution of August 5, 1954, which required that a provision of a treaty or other international agreement should not conflict with the Constitution generally and must be made in pursuance thereof. "If a provision of a treaty or other international agreement, when questioned in the courts, is to be tested by whether it conflicts with the Constitution as a whole, il would leave a Court free to speculate, and hold the treaty provision valid on some overall theory of constitutional law. Whereas, if a provision of a treaty is violative of any particular section of the Constitution, then a court is barred from indulging in general constitutional theories and must measure the provision of tbe treaty against the specific language or prohibitions of a particular section of the Constitution. For example, if there is a provision in a treaty like a proposed Covenant on Human Rights, dealing with the matter of freedom of speech or of press, it can be of no force and effect, under the new text of amendments, if il conflicts with the first provision of our Bill of Rights, standing alone. . . ." *Califoi California U.S.A., June, 1956, published by :or the Bricker Amendment. ent is required in order to carry. We would have needed sixty-one votes that day; and we got only sixty. And so the resolution failed. That session of Congress adjourned and that was the end of it, but it was intro- duced in the present, or 84th, Con- gress. Distinguished lawyers have worked over the language. We have had much more testimony from international lawyers — great lawyers who have served as Presidents of the American Bar Association — and at long last we have come up with a very simple version, which it was my privilege to submit to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. It was approved by a vote of eleven to two. That version is presently before the Senate of the United States. When all the reports and all the individual views have been filed, then comes the problem of securing clearance so that we can enact it. It will then be sent to the House of Representatives for further consideration. Outside of the requirement that treaties be passed by a yea and nay vote — a recorded vote — this is the substance of the revised Bricker amendment, and I want to give you the language. It says simply, "A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect." The controversy centers around just three words; these three words are "any provision of." Heretofore the Senate has approved language to the effect that a provision of a treaty or international agreement that conflicts with the Constitution is of no force or effect. But those previous amendments and resolutions did not carry the words, "anv provision of." Under this proposed amendment a treaty or international agreement which might be negotiated must be in harmony with the guarantees and the provisions of the Constitution and any provision of the Constitution if it is to be effective. In your judgment, is that too much to ask? It seems to me it is the only effective way that this great document that has meant so much to the fulfillment of American destiny will, in time of fever and ferment of the world, be kept intact and those rights safeguarded and secured. Page 41
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n008_043.jpg