Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955
File 015
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955 - File 015. 1955-09. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. January 23, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/434.

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 015. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/434

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 015, 1955-09, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed January 23, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/434.

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: 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 015
Transcript The Bricker Constitutional Amendmenl failed by only one vote lo get lhe required two-thirds majority when last considered in Congress. Now, for the third time, United States Senator John W. Bricker. Republican of Ohio, has proposed a constitutional amendment which would provide that no treaties or international executive agreements with foreign powers become domestic law in the United Slates without prior approval of Congress. Critics contend thai the Bricker Amendment would be an invasion of the powers of the executive branch and would hinder the President in foreign relations. Senator Bricker and those supporting his amendment feel that they arc in a stronger position in view of the recent revelations in lhe publication of the Yalta Papers of Presidenl Roosevelt's secrel agreements with Stalin. Supporlers say, loo, the Bricker Amendmenl is designed lo protect the United Slales from any peculiar pads passed hv lhe I r.tt.-.l Nations. called Litvinoff Assignments of Russian insurance funds could be effective without ratification by lhe Senate. In other ivorels. an executive agreement becomes of the same status of a treaty, the supreme law of the land, and did transfer those funds and did violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from lakiii'5 property without due process of law. DOHERTY: Senator, as a mutter of ''old turkey politics, there isn't much lime left in this session of Congress, certainly, for consideration of your amendment. Bricker: Well, nobodv knows how "nil-h time is left in this session of the Congress. Of course, if it is on the calendar it will be up next year. Thc end of this session does not kill legisla- 'i'.n ;it the end of the session. I am very hopeful that it can be passed upon this year. If not, and the leadership will not "ring it up for one reason or another •Hid I don't know what that reason might be because I think it's the most importanl thing we have got outside of keeping the government going by appropriations— 'I they do not bring it up I certainly shall Push lo get it up first thing next year see 3s to give the House time to pass upon 11 next year. DOHERTY: Well, Senator, in case it doe- come up next year, mightn't it get "I confused and mixed up in the big Political battle for control of lhe White 'louse in 1956? Bricker: Oh. you don't know what " will get confused in. The issues are fWj clear-cut The opposition is preltv *ell defined now. We know what it is ''"il where it comes from. DOHERTY: Some of it comes from the White House'. DRICKER: Some of it has in the past. "ie President has now said thai he is n°t opposed to an amendment which h"ul.l prohibit a treaty or international agreement from violating anv terms of "ie Constitution, and Mr. Dulles also ;estified, as you remember, in the hear- [Jg to the effect that he did not want the •resident to have, and I am quite confi- j**nt the President himself does not want '"' President to have, power to make law PACTS FORUM NEWS, September, 1955 individually for the people of this country. Those are the two most important parts. Now if we get the third section, which requires a roll call vote, and that means a quorum before the vote is taken. \ou have some additional protection there also on the matter of treaties. PRINA: Is there any sorl of compromise that might be worked oul between you and thc administration? BRICKER: It mav be. I have always been willing to compromise. I worked on it, a year or, you remember, two years ago very diligently to get something that would be satisfactory to the people downtown. The fact is that this is a legislative matter. It's a matter for the Congress under the Constitution—the Presidenl doesn't sign it; he can't veto it. Now the President has a perfect right to say. if il affects his position, what that effect will be. I have felt time ami time again lhal lhe While House has gone loo far in its opposition by having personal contact with Senators in order to determine what their vole might be. I have had no hesitancy in saying that to them, and have said it publicly time and time again, and I believe it to be true. Then in tbe ratification even by the legislatures of the stales, the governor can't veto lhal ratification. Thai's a legis- lalive matter entirely, for the simple reason that policy-making is a matter for the Congress of lhe I nited Stale.-. The Executive is an executive. He car- lie-s out thc laws of thc Congress, and the amending section to the Constitution got ihis provision just as close back to the people as il could, and left il solely, properly, in the bands of the policymaking power of ihe government, which is the Congress and the legislatures oi the states. HURLEIGH: Senator Bricker. the Bricker Amendment was not aimed at the present administration, wet- not aimed at President Eisenhower. Brickeh: No. it was drafted and filed long before he became President or be- eeimi' candidate for President. HURLEIGH: And yel, sir. the very facl that he has in a sense led the opposition in the administration againsl the Bricker Amendmenl—has thai not now put him in a position lhal would cause him a certain amount of trouble next year if he allowed this lo be postponed and become a political issue? linn kir: I don't think so at all. He has already suggested that he is content with an amendment which would prohibit a violation of the Constitution by anv treaty or executive agreement. In fact, that is the essence and the substance of this whole thing. Now the second section is to merely make that effective, be- i eiiise- as you know, in Missouri against Holland the Supreme Court held that a treat) doesn't violate the Constitution il's the supreme law of the land, under the- terms of the Constitution, though il was never intended to be that. When you read the history of our country and the Constitutional Convention, you immediately realize that such an interpretation was the furthest thing from the thought of Hamilton, Jefferson. Meeeh son or any of the other leaders. PRINA: Senator Bricker. aren't there many other eases you could cite that would show lhal lhe Supreme Court has ruled that no treaty made overrides the Constitution? Bricker: Oh. they never have said lhal a treaty violated the Constitution at all because until 1945 . . . PriiNA: Not violate it, but they made it clear that it couldn't. Bricker: No. no, that's not lhe law now, because Missouri against Holland reversed all that, and then Curtiss Wright said that the treaty-making power is ei matter of sovereignty, and then the Pink ease said that even an executive agreement can violate a section of the Consti- lulion. and it set aside not only the decision ..I lhe Supreme Courl of Sew York, the laws of New York, but lhe fifth article of the first ten amendments. PRINA: Actually, in a treaty which does affect domestic rights and duties, would it nol he necessary for the Congress lo pass laws lo carry ihis Ireatv into efl eel ? Bricker: That's what I want done. and that's the purpose of the Amendment as far as the internal law is concerned. But now no. Now. ii becomes the su- preme law of the land as soon as the treaty i- ratified bv two-thirds of the Page 1.1
File Name uhlib_1352973_v004_n008_015.jpg