Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955
File 018
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 8, September 1955 - File 018. 1955-09. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. July 10, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/437.

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 018. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/437

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 018, 1955-09, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed July 10, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/489/show/437.

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 018
Transcript e political prisonei ol the international wing of his parly, and therefore' opposes the Bricker Amendment. The Status of Armed Funis Treaty authorizes the civil authorities of any country thai has signed the treaty, in which American soldiers are stationed, to arrest soldiers who may be charged or suspected of any crime. There is no limitation as to the number who may be arrested; and consequently, an overnight change in government could take place, eunl the nexl day the whole' eAmeri- .5111 army might be arrested eiml taken under some' phon) charge ami held un- der the terms of ei treaty negotiated b) John Foster Dulles. Naturally, we do mil anticipate such a thing, but there ts nothing tit the treaty it, pi,■teat it There is no hope that lhe Supreme Court will set aside the judicial precedents of thc Holland. Pink and Keefe cases. The majority of lhe members ..I the' court are committed to the precedents of the cases anil the policies of the I nited Nations. Only through a constitutional amendment, such as the Bricker Amendment, can the guarantees of the American Bill of Rights be restored. Only through repeal of the Status of .Armed Forces Treat) can lhe rights of men and women in the armed forces In1 preserved while' on foreign -oil. What rem you, as a private citizen, ele. to make secure the constitutional guarantees "i Vmerican freedoms: Whal eem \eni ilo to bring aboul lln repeal of the Status of Armed Forces Treaty? Whal eem you do to force lhe I nited Sieile-s Senate lo enact the Bricker Amendmenl ami thereby render void lhe provisions of any treaty that conflicts with the American Bill of Rights? There is much lhal you can do! When thc American public demands these things — they nill come to pass! If you are opposed to the supernational worlel governmenl proposed l»\ the United Nations to replace' the' Conslilu- tion of the I nited States then register your opposition NOW with your I nited States senators and your part) leaders, ll is later than vou lliiiik. Senator Lehman's Views (Continued from Page ll) in 1917; the state fair-trade laws have been revived; and unilateral determinations in tli*- executive branch are no longer binding upon businessmen having contracts with the government. OVERRIDE CONSTITUTION? The congressional power to enacl legislation superseding a treaty as internal law har- been clearly established l>\ the Supreme Court. An act of Con- gress having this effect, like any other act of Congress, musl be in pursuance nl the Constitution, and therefore subordinate thereto. It strikes me as wholl) illogical to claim that a treaty might -land above the Constitution, when we know that, as internal law. a treaty can be overridden by legislation which must lie subject lo the Constitution. If a treaty can stand no better than an act of Congress, to mv way of thinking it follows that a treaty must he subject to the Constitution in the same degree as an act of (longress. The de of the Supreme Courl afford no basis for any claim or fear that treaties ma) override lhe Constitution. In fact, the statements on this subject in ihe Supreme Court's opinions are definitely in accord with mir traditional concept of constitutional supremacy. For instance. I find the following in an opinion of the Supreme Court, written in 1870: It need lianlK Im- said that a treat} cannot 'hange the Constitution or lie held valid if it he in violation of thai instrument. \\ li\ did this "need hardly be said?" * Mi\ iously because the Supreme (!ourl fell there was no real question aboul it. I feel exactly the same way. There appeared in today's issue of the ll ashington Post an excellent article h\ the very able and distinguished columnist. Walter Lippmann, in which he clearly points oul the impossibility of reaching an agreemenl regarding the meaning of the various compromise proposals on the Bricker Vmendmenl which have been put forward. He also states there is no question regarding the supremacy of the Constitution i<> an) treaty. I am no constitutional lawyer. The court decisions and arguments to which I have referred have been furnished me b) constitutional authorities and I draw them to the attention of the Senate and the public for their further consideration. Bul as a layman. I cannot see that an) new or startling doctrine was promulgated by the Migrator) Bird decision of 1920. the now famous case of Missouri against Holland. Mr. Justice Olivei Wendell Holmes. u riling the opinion in the Migrator) Bird case, went out of his way to forestall any disquieting inference of a revolutionary change in our constitutional law. lb- said : We do net mean i<> imply thai there are no qualifications to tlie treaty-making power. The Migratory Bird decision sustained a federal law implementing a treaty even though the law dealt with a subjeel which would have been within the exclusive control of lhe -tale- if a treat) hail not been involved. This means -imply that the treat) power is supreme mmi -tale law, as the Constitution says it is, in any matter which is an appropriate subjeel loi a treat) ; and thi? supreme power i- plenary, sufficient to do the full job required "I a treaty. I here appeared in lhe \eu York Times thi- morning a ver) interesting, illuminating, and educational article, in tie- form of a letter tn the editoi of tie Sew York Times from ihe distinguished lawyer, Mr. \rlhur II. Dean. Special Ambassador lo Korea. The letter reads as follows: INTERPRETING VMENDMENTS MIGRATORY With Kt LING Mn I SSED IN RELATION TO BRICKER PR0P0SA1 To the Editor of the iVetu York Times: In the last few days there have been increasingly frequent references by the proponents of the Bricker Amendment and in commentaries on the constitutional debate which it has precipitated to the 1920 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Missouri v. Holland. This decision, sn it is asserted, established thai a treaty could override the Tenth Amendment to the (Constitution. If this assertion is correct iln- provision included not only in Senator Bricker's original amendment, hut also in the compromises proposed li> Senators Knowland. George, and McCarran, respectively that a treaty provision which conflicts with the 1 onstitution will noi be of any force oi effect will not be a mere restatement ol existing law bul ma) in facl inadvertent^ reintroduce by the hack door the controversial "which" clause of the Rricker Amendment. The facts in Missouri v, Holland were thai after two lower federal courts had held a federal statute regulating the shooting nf migratory birds to he unconstitutional en ih.- ground that such regulation of wild life was not within the specifically enumerated powers delegated tn Congress, the United States and the United Kinji- dnin (acting for Canada) entered into a treaty providing foi reciprocal legislation establishing specified closed seasons for migratory birds. When Holland, a United ■slate- game warden, sought to enforce tl"' implementing statute, Missouri sued to en inin him from doing so nn tlie ground that the act was an unconstitutional inter ference with rights reserved tn the state* liv the Tenth \mendment. which provide-1 that: ■ 'The powers nol delegated to the Inited State- by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the state- are reserved te ihe states respectively, or tn tin- people REAL VERSUS FANCIED LIMITS Mr. Justice Holmes, but not speaking tor a unanimous Court, upheld the consti tutionality of the treaty and statute nn tie basis that the treaty was within tlie treat) making power specifically delegated to the federal governmenl bj the Constitution, and thai the implementing congressional fttatute was necessary and propei tn exe cute an expressly delegated federal power, Page Hi FACTS FORUM NEWS, September, t9^
File Name uhlib_1352973_v004_n008_018.jpg