4. ROBERT F. DRINAN, S. J., DEAN, THE BOSTON College Law School THE BOSTON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL SAINT THOMAS MORE DRIVE BRIGHTON 35, MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF THE DEAN January 8, 1957 W. J. Schrenk, Jr., Assistant Secretary Committee for Defense of the Constitution 36 West 44th Street New York 36, New York Dear Mr. Schrenk: I would agree substantially with the comments of the professors and deans who have taken a position that the Bricker Amendment is unnecessary and unwise. Cordially yours, ROBERT F. DRINAN, S. J. Robert F. Drinan, S. J. Dean 5. JOHN D. O'REILLY, JR., Professor of Law, THE BOSTON College Law SCHOOL THE BOSTON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL Saint Thomas More Drive Brighton 35, Massachusetts Dean Jefferson B. Fordham 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia 4, Pennsylvania Dear Dean Fordham: December 7, 1956 I am as firmly opposed to the 1956 version of the "Bricker Amendment" as I have been to the earlier versions which I opposed by addressing the committee of the Massachusetts Legislature and urging rejection of a proposed memorial to Congress which would have favored adoption of the amendment in 1954. I am thoroughly in accord with the "Statement of Position on the Bricker Amendment 1956" issued by the Committee for Defense of the Constitution by Preserving the Treaty Power. If the amendment would merely have the effect of stating the existing law, it is redundant, and its adoption would be a bad precedent for cluttering the Constitution with restatement of other constitutional doctrines which one pressure group or another may wish to clarify. If, as I strongly suspect, the Dirksen proposal means something more, the dictate of prudence would be not to insert it in the Constitution unless and until general agreement can be reached as to, at least approximately, just what more it does mean. The United States, whether one likes it or not, is a member of the Family of Nations, and, in the very nature of things, it must reach agreement with the other nations on a wide variety of subjects. As a corollary of this I see a high moral obligation, if not a legal one, to establish and maintain governmental machinery by which these necessary agreements may effectively be made. My chief objection to the original "Bricker Amendment" was that the "which clause," by practically negativing the existence of such machinery in the United States, would have been a repudiation of this obligation of international morality. The same objection, in but slightly different degree, is to be made to the Dirksen version. By inviting litigation, to be resolved under a standard of uncertain content, over any and all treaties which have been or shall be made, and by creating an atmosphere of serious doubt of the binding force of nearly every treaty of the United States, the amendment would strip the nation of the means of effectively conducting foreign relations. Cordially yours, JOHN D. O'Reilly, Jr. 6. ALBERT R. Beisel, Jr., ProfeSSOR OF LAW, BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAw BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW ASHBURTON PLACE Boston 8, Massachusetts May 1, 1956 Mr. Jefferson B. Fordham 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Dear Mr. Fordham: This is in reply to your memorandum on the latest version of the proposed Brickertype amendment to the Constitution with respect to the treaty power. I am opposed to Senator Dirksen's latest version, just as I was to Senator Bricker's, and for the same reasons. I subscribe wholeheartedly to the statement of the Committee for Defense of the Constitution on this matter. Very truly yours, ALBERT R. BEISEL, JR. 7. ROBERT B. Kent, Professor of Law, BosTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW ELEVEN ASHBURTON PLACE BOSTON 8, MASSACHUSETTS January 10, 1957 Committee for Defense of the Constitution By Preserving the Treaty Power 36 West 44th Street New York 36, New York Gentlemen: I am in complete agreement with your Statement of Position on the Bricker Amendment (1956). I am opposed to Senator Dirksen's proposal as I was to that of Senator Bricker. Furthermore, I do not believe that any amendment to the Constitution in this area is now necessary, and I most strongly oppose tinkering with the Constitution in the name of clarification. Very truly yours, ROBERT B. KENT Robert B. Kent 8. J. D. HYMAN, Dean, School of Law, The UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO I have received your letter of December 21, accompanied by a proof of the Statement of Views, a copy of your letter of December 3 (which I apparently did not receive), and a copy of Dean McCall's letter of December 13, 1956. I was strongly opposed to the 1953 version of the Bricker Amendment. I share the view, expressed in all but one of the statements which you have printed, to the effect that the 1956 version involves to a substantial degree the dangers of the 1953 version. There would seem to be no purpose served in my attempting to formulate a personal version of my grounds of objection. Perhaps I could say that the letter of Professor Kauper comes very close to the formulation that I would make. Sincerely yours, J. D. HYMAN J. D. Hyman |