Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955
File 014
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955 - File 014. 1955-09. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. September 29, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/433.

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. (1955-09). Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955 - File 014. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/433

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. 4, No. 8, September 1955 - File 014, 1955-09, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed September 29, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/433.

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. 4, No. 8, September 1955
Alternate Title Facts Forum News, Vol. IV, No. 8, September 1955
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date September 1955
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. 4 1955; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States
Item Description
Title File 014
Transcript ■msEs Senator Bricker Interview (Continued from Page 11) Bricker: That would not have been approved? Yes—Genocide is over in the Foreign Belations Committee now. The Covenant of Human Rights no doubt would have been submitted long ago, because the State Department and the President have stated that they were in favor of it. There are many other ILO Conventions that have been entered into that have been submitted to this country to be submitted to the Senate for ratification. PRIV-V: Yes, but Senator, what I was getting at—don't you think the two- thirds rule, the two-thirds of the Senators present procedure, would have stopped such treaties? Bricker: Far from it. I think if it hadn't been that this amendment had been submitted and so much attention given to it by the members of the Senate and by the public generally throughout this country, many of them no doubt would have passed without any reservation. You remember that the Senate in the treaty with Israel which I mentioned a moment ago did put in reservations protecting the rights of the states in their constitutions and in their state laws as to citizenship, realizing always that a lawyer has to take an oath of obligation, lie is really an officer of the court. In fact, he has to be a citizen of this country and pledge allegiance to our constitutional system of government. PRINA: Senator, Secretary of State Dulles before he became Secretary of State said that there has been a trend toward trying to use the treaty-making power to effect international social changes. Do you believe this is true, and if so, can you cite any examples? Bricker: Oh, I know it's true. The specialized agencies of the United Na- lieuis. which are acting independently of course, have drafted between one hundred and two hundred treaties to be submitted to the United States which would affect the internal laws of this country, unl Mr. Humphries, who was the manager or the administrative secretary of that first commission, said very definitely that what we are trying to do is something revolutionary. Heretofore the rights of a citizen within his country have been his rights in relation to his own government, and determined internally, while what we are trying to do is revolutionary, in applying international law to the citizens of the various countries that are participants to these treaties. DOHERTY: Senator Bricker, if your amendment became the law of the land— would that affect our relationship within lhe United Nations? Bricker: It is not intended to. We would still be a member of the United Nations, and it wouldn't affect our par ticipation there at all. That's a compact of the nations, an agreement, a treaty— it is not a government in any way, shape or form, and our internal relations in this country, the laws of the United States and the various states of the ( nion are no matters for the United Nations to consider, fn fact, the Charter itself says, in Article II, Paragraph 7, that this shall not affect the internal affairs or the domestic affairs of the participating countries, and it wouldn't have been ratified had that not been in there. Secretary Stettinius, you remember, sent a letter to the Senate confirming that, saying that in no way would it ever be use'ii to interfere with the domestic matters of the participating countries. No sooner was the ink dry on the parchment than these specialized agencies that have been set up set about their task of drafting treaties which under our peculiar phrasing in the Constitution do become the supreme law of the land, and as Mr. Dulles said, very definitely and rightfully, in his speech to the American Bar at Louisville, that is a very dangerous power. Treaty law is superior to congressional law because congressional law has to comply with the terms of the Constitution; treaty law does not. He said that a treaty can transfer powers from the states to the Congress, from the Congress to the President, or to some international authority. They can cut across the rights given to the people in the Bill of Rights and set aside the provisions of the Constitution. PRINA: Well, Senator, couldn't the Congress simply by passing another law supersede the action of a treaty? Bricker: In domestic affairs they could if they wanted to violate the terms of the treaty. I think that has been sustained by the Supreme Court. What they will do in the future nobody knows under the present wording of the Constitution, but if they could, it would then take to override the veto of the President two- thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House, and it took two-thirds of the Senate to get the treaty adopted; therefore, it would be very difficult to get two- thirds of the Senate to override a veto of the President, or even two-thirds of the House if the House were narrowly divided, because the power of the administration has been growing at such a rapid pace recently that their influence over legislation is greater than possibly it's ever been in the past, or was contemplated in the original Constitution. Prina: Approval of a treaty takes two- thirds of those present—it doesn't take two-thirds of the Senate. Bricker: There have been treaties reitifieel with two or three people on the floor. I remember three that were ratified when I was in the chair one day when only six members were on the floor. PRINA: Senalor Bricker, is it true lhat the United States is one of the very few nations where a treaty can chunge purely domestic rights and duties without the approval of the national legislature? Bricker: Yes. Most other nations of the world have to have parliamentary or congressional action, whatever you might call it, before a treaty becomes domestic law. That's true in England, true in Canada, it's true in Germany— all the great countries in the world, and in a modified form in France, Mexico. Cuba and the Philippine Islands. PRINA: Do you think then that is the answer to the opponents of the Amendment who say that such an amendment would completely hamstring the conduct of foreign affairs? Bricker: That is not only the answer, but our Constitution is stronger than any other, even including those I have mentioned in making a treaty the supreme law of the land domestically. PRINA: Well there is also this to i-on- sider in that connection, is there not. that the Supreme Court has ruled no treaty may entail anything forbidden by the Constitution. BRICKER: Years ago there were deci- -ions to that effect, and in the last century there were a lot of decisions to the effect that a treaty could not set aside the provisions of the Constitution. Thai has all been outlawed now, and the rule has been changed entirely in Missouri against Holland and in subsequent cases —in the Curtiss Wright case, for in- stance — and the Supreme Court has never held unconstitutional a provision of any treaty for the simple reason lhal the Supreme Court has said lime and time again these eire political mailers and the Supreme Court doesn't enter into them: bul in the Missouri againsl Holland case Justice Holmes wrote an opinion in which he said that a treaty doesn't have to comply with the Constitution, and it did set aside Article' 1" of the Constitution. Pkina: Oh, I don't sav comply wit'1 it, but it can't allow something thai is expressly forbidden l.v the' Constitution. Bricker: Well, it did in lhat case. PRINA: Do you ihink lhal llie Migratory Bird case did lhat? Bricker: In that case it did. Powers were reserved to the states under lb1' Tenth Amendment. And tbe Supreme Court in the decision said very definitely. lhat under a treaty you transfer thus1' powers from the states to the Congress- and they upheld the act of Congress which had been denied before the treaty was in existence. Now it wasn't necessary—I grant you it's a very fuzzy opi"' ion, and in my judgment it isn't a sound opinion, but that's the law of the land and it has been followed up since tha' time in other cases, and further than th-1' the Supreme Court held that the SO' Page 12 FACTS FORUM NEWS, September, 19S5
File Name uhlib_1352973_v004_n008_014.jpg