Senate present and voting. There isn't
any question about that, and all the pettifogging that the opposition has done—
and there has been much pettifogging—
all of it doesn't in any way reverse the
decision of the Supreme Court. It simply
adds confusion to the issue, which is a
clear-cut one; first, that a treaty must,
like the laws of Congress, be under the
Constitution—one supreme law, the Constitution of the United Slates--and that
it shall not become domestic law until
the Congress makes it so. Congress being
the policy-making power for the laws of
our people. Now what business is it of
Britain or France or Japan or Bussia fir
a national of those countries as to what
your relationship to your government is.
what your rights in relation to me might
Prina: Senator, what I was primarily
thinking about in this connection was
enabling legislation, legislation that
would be necessary to actually carry out
these supreme laws that are laid down
by treat ii'-.
Bricker: Well, of course, then you
immediately bring the law under the
Constitution because it's an act of Congress then and isn't above' the Constitution or outside of its terms.
DOHERTY: Senator, as a matter of
cold lurkey politics again, wouldn't this
force lhe President to come lo Congress
lial in hand every time he wanted a
Bricker: Oh. far from it. Treaties
would be enacted just exactly as they are
m.ie. They would be negotiated by the
President and the State Department.
They would be sent down to tbe Senate
for ratification. They would be ratifieel
and thev would become the supreme law
of tbe land as far as any international
relationship is concerned. Formal treaties
are primarily and totally supposed to
represent a sovereign nation in relation
to another sovereign nation, and should
have nothing to do with internal laws.
Nobody ever contemplated thai they
should until this fuzzy opinion of Jus-
lie T lb.lines in Missouri against Holland
said that they could make domestic internal law in our country, and then when
all of the specialized agencies of the
I nited Nations started to work on everything from labor relations to insurance
laws te, socialized medicine to lhe right-
of a mother in employment, wages ami
hours: until thev started to work on those
things the danger did not become apparent. The first red flag, of course, was the
Covenant of Human Rights, which, if it
held become the supreme law of the land,
as it would if ratified by the Senate,
would place your right and mine to free
speech, freedom of the press, the right
to worship God, the right of assembly.
and of petition to Congress■- make them
subject to the laws of the country, and
even subject to international dictates,
and then if thev created the International
Court of Criminal Justice, which is now
in formation, an American citizen could
be taken any place in the world and tried
before that court on which we might or
might not even have one member—we
would never have any more than that
and he wouldn't have the protection of
the Constitution of the United States in
that trial, the right of indictment by
grand jury, the right to be confronted
with witnesses, the right to public trial;
and of course the right to trial in the
districl or lhe slate wherein the crime
was committed would be entirelv taken
away from him.
HURLEIGH: Senator Bricker. many
of your supporters believe thai John Foster Dulles, as an international attorney of
repute, prior to taking over his cabinet
position a- Secretary of Stale, had been
in effect a supporter of the Bricker
Amendment anil hall said so in speeches,
yel after he became Secretary of State he
tended to reverse his position. They claim
lhal this was due lo lhe political siluation
and his having become a member of the
Cabinet. Have you any feelings on thai?
Bricker; No. you would have to ei-k
Mr. Dulles to answer that question, but
I do know that he made the most clear-
i in statement al Louisville on the dangers of treaty law that had been made
b) any prominent lawyer in lhe- I nited
Stale-, with the exception of those who
have testified here in the . . .
HIRI.EIUH: Are you saying. Senator,
lhal Secretary Dulles in his Louisville
speech spoke out in favor of the Bricker
Amendment or an amendment of this
Bricker: He said tbat treaty law is
ei very dangerous law. that it is paramount to the law- of Cemgri'-s because
it doesn't have to conform to the Constitution. It can transfer powers from local
governments to Congress, and from Con-
gre— tee tlie- President or lo an international body, and further than lhat. il can
set aside the rights of the American people given in the Constitution.
PRINA: But Senator, he said subsequently, 1 believe, lhal while treaty law
is liable to abase, sueh abuse has nol
taken place, and he and many others have
pointed mu. or have asked why. after
nearly 1711 wars without lhe Bricker
Amendment, we suddenly meal il t<> guarantee these safeguards to lhe citizens of
lhe I Inited Slates?
BRICKER: We'll, because the whole
philosophy is changed. The State Department, if you remember, under Mr.
Truman and Mr. Roosevelt, and immediately afler lhe I nited Neiliuns was organized, took the position that ihere- i-
no longer anv difference between domes-
lie eiml international law. that anything
the General Assembly takes up becomes
international in character, anything we
would enter into a treaty about is inter-
national, and no longer is there any pro-
tection on domestic law, so with thai
philosophy there is a complete turnabout on the part of the administration
taking to themselves the power under
treaties to make laws for the people eef
the' I nited Stales lirst, ami second, that
the President himself by executive agreement can make laws. Now remember the
Potato case, in which the Attorney General in his brief on certiorari in the Supreme Court said that unless the right
of the President lo sel aside a law of the
Congress were sustained there would be
over ei hundred other such executive
agreements thai would fall. I have asked
what they were; I haven't been able to
get them. I asked Mr. Brownell in the
last hearing to submit for the record a
li-t eef those in which be referred. That
means that the Presidenl of the United
States himself, by executive agreement,
is making law. amending lhe laws of lhe
Congress, and a great deal of that
amendment has been in secrel. and
maybe we don't know what il is yet.
HURLEIGH: Are the Bricker backer-
getting a fair break. Senator, in lhe hear-
inL-- conducted by Senator Kefauver, who
is deeply hillen perhaps by lhe presidential bug?
Bricker: Ob. yes, we g'.i to presenl
our case thoroughly and adequately, eunl
since thai time' Senator Kefauver called
his subcommittee together, which reported out tin- Amendmenl as ii weis submitted by ei vote' ol three to two. I have
no complaint with the way the hearing-
were conducted or with the action of the
subcommittee since tbat time.
HURLEIGH I What about Republican
e-leeiiiis lhal if il wasn't for lhe Bricker
Vmeiidmeiil lasl year, Repuhlirans would
control the House ami Senate now?
Bricker: I don'l know that il had anything to do with it. The Republican parly
largely supported this amendment. I'
was in the platform of the lasl National
Convention, eiml if lhal isn't Republican
doctrine I don't know where win are going to find it.
Hurleich: Well, perhaps Senator
Ferguson in Michigan did mil support
BRICKER: Well, he supported it iii ih'
beginning. He weis one of the signers to
ii. anil then saw III eil thc lasl nol lo support il. That mighl have bail something
to do with his election. I don't know
um will have io ee-k iln- people of Michigan aboul thai.
Ill rleigh: Well, perhaps if it die1
have anything lo do with his election
and he is not now in the Senate, it would
hem' changed the Senate.
BRICKER: Yes, if he had been elected
ami there had been no other changes-
There- was another one who was defeated-
vou remember, that also swilehcd in lb''
middle of this, ami that was Guy Cillctt''
out in Iowa. He was one of the original
signers and he reversed bis position, a"'
be stayed home too.
HURLEIGH: Wilh President Fisc"
bower's administration against you, w'1"
are your chief supporters for the Amendment?
Bricker: The American people.
FACTS FORUM NEWS, September, 1»M