Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955
File 016
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955 - File 016. 1955-09. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. July 4, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/435.

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 016. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/435

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 016, 1955-09, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed July 4, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/435.

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 016
Transcript 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 be—that's domestic. 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 treaty? 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 -on? 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 il enough. 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. Page 14 FACTS FORUM NEWS, September, 1»M
File Name uhlib_1352973_v004_n008_016.jpg