THE BRICKER AMENDMENT-NECESSARY TO KEEP US FROM BECOMING SLAVES OF WORLD GOVERNMENT-STATEMENT RE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS FOR NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SECURITY, CHAPTER 1, BY GERALDINE EARLIN One would suppose that no American would be opposed to a constitutional amendment that would make it clear for all time that a treaty with a foreign nation could not supersede our Constitution nor be used to make internal law for the people of the United States, law that rules your daily life and mine. The Bricker amendment is so simply stated that it is impossible to misunderstand it. It states that section 1, "A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which conflicts with this Constitution, or which is not made in pursuance thereof, shall not be the supreme law of the land nor be of any force or effect." How many of our people are aware of the fact that we have a treaty under NATO called the Status of Forces Treaty which does just that-supersedes our Constitution? Under our Constitution we are guaranteed the right of trial by jury by our own courts but, on July 15, 1953, the United States Senate ratified a treaty whereby those rights were taken away from our boys serving their country in the Armed Forces in foreign lands. Now, they are tried by the court of the guilty, while in most other countries the individual is considered guilty until proved innocent-an entirely different conception of justice. Many of these boys are in uniform through no choice of their own, having been drafted. They are stationed, without their consent, in approximately 40 countries all over the world. According to a Congressional Record, dated August 6, 1954, there were more than 400 soldiers in uniform-American boys-who had been sentenced by foreign courts. How many people realize that, under laws of certain countries, the penalty for even touching stolen food is to chop off the hands? Is this what we may expect for our sons? The Bricker amendment would prevent such treaties from being effective and since this (NATO) treaty does conflict with our Constitution it would be of no force. Section 2 of the Bricker amendment reads: "A treaty or other international agreement shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation valid in the absence of international agreement." This simply states that a treaty can be made between this country and another country and as soon as it is ratified by the United States Senate it is effective-but only as international law. It would take further legislation by our United States Senate to make said treaty internal law. As our Constitution now stands, a treaty ratified by the United States Senate automatically becomes our internal law, and this is one of the most important reasons for having the protection of the Bricker amendment. Should we allow foreign countries, through the United Nations or any other means, to make laws affecting our citizens as internal law? There are just three countries, other than our own, in the United Nations that do not give this protection to their people. If these other countries in the U. N. and NATO have this protection, how could any American citizen be against having this same protection for himself? The same protection is the right of every American citizen. We have proof in the status-of-forces treaty that it can happen here. The argument that other countries would not want to do business with us if we have the protection of the Bricker amendment is absurd. They carry on business with these other countries that provide this protection for their citizens. One only has to remember that the United States Senate was on the verge of ratifying the genocide convention (treaty) and that it took tremendous effort to prevent its ratification to realize how badly we do need the Bricker amendment. Under the genocide convention (treaty), we could lose our basic rights of freedom of speech, etc., and as American citizens could be accused of the crime of genocide, taken to a foreign country, there tried by an international court composed of foreigners, convicted, and sentenced. This genocide treaty could again be brought forth at any time to be ratified by our United States Senate. Remember, as our Constitution now stands, a treaty ratified by our United States Senate automatically becomes our internal law, the law that rules our daily lives. Another example of the dangers to our constitutional rights through international treaties is shown in the covenant on human rights (treaty). The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has been working for 7 years on the covenant (treaty) and, after more than 400 meetings, they have refused, by 99860-5831 a large majority, to include, as a basic human right, the right to own property. Our Constitution gives the individual citizen the right to own his own home, business, land, and other privileges. The human-rights covenant provides that "freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law." What law? The right to hold and express an opinion and the right to associate in trade unions are also limited by restrictions "as provided by law." What law? Our Constitution provides that a treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, not two-thirds of all the Senators, as some would have us believe. It is a matter of record that a treaty bringing Turkey and Greece into NATO was passed on January 29, 1952, with but six Senators present and voting. That treaty could take us into war if either of these countries were attacked. It is a matter of record that a treaty with Ireland was passed on June 13, 1952, with only one Senator besides the Senator in the chair present and voting. As recently as January 26, 1954, the mutual-defense treaty with Korea was passed with only 11 Senators present and voting (Congressional Records). Executive agreements do not even require ratification by the United States Senate, and so we see how such agreements as Yalta were imposed on the people. We should heed the words of Patrick Henry: "When you yourselves have your necks so low that the President may dispose of your rights as he pleases, the law of nations cannot be applied to relieve you. Sure I am, if treaties are made infringing our liberties, it will be too late to say that our constitutional rights are violated * * *” In 1798, the Supreme Court held (3 Dall. 378) that a proposal by Congress to amend a Constitution is not a legislative subject and, therefore, not for consideration by the President. So, the doctrine of noninterference by the President or by any other member of the executive department with the constitutional functioning of the Congress in proposing an amendment as authorized by article V has been established from the beginning. It has also been pointed out by an eminent authority on constitutional law that, under our American system of constitutional government, the President of the United States is accorded no function in connection with amending our Constitution. He points out that our first President, George Washington, very properly took no part in the controversy between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson when our original Bill of Rights was being considered as a part of our Constitution by amendment because the Constitution gave him no part. Since the United Nations Charter comes up for review in 1955, we must have the protection of the Bricker amendment. The plan of the world-government proponents is to amend the charter into a world-ruling document at that time. How? Through the "treatymaking power" under the Constitution of the United States-under article VI, paragraph 2, which states, in part: "*** and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." If the amendments proposed on the review are for world government-remember, the United Nations Charter was adopted as a treaty-these amendments would be part of that treaty, which would become the supreme law of the land. World government would not be our form of government-with the Communists controlling some 800 million people and the voting power being allocated according to population of each state, it is simple to see that we would be outvoted on every issue. The United States has but one-sixth of the population of the worldone only has to think of the vast populations of China, Russia, and India to know that this is true. The cost of operating is to be according to the national income-therefore, it is plain to be seen that we would pay the bill. Are our American citizens going to allow themselves to be taxed again and again by foreign powers who have little or no conception nor appreciation of our American way of life and our principles of government? In refusing to review the case of Pvt. Richard Keefe, tried, sentenced, and jailed by a French court under NATO Status of Forces Treaty, the Supreme Court of the United States has shown the American people that the courts no longer protect them against loss of their constitutional rights through treaty law. To say that the Constitution has served us well for 167 years is fine, but we must remember it has been amended 22 times. It would be just as tragic to say that we did not need the amendment abolishing slavery as it is today to say that we do not need the Bricker amendment, an amendment that will keep the people of the United States from becoming slaves of world government through an "uncontrolled treatymaking power." Hon. ESTES KEFAUVER, NATIONAL SOJOURNERS, INC., Chairman, Standing Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: It is understood that interested groups and organizations are permitted to present their views to you, in writing, in connection with the hearings held by your subcommittee on the matter of Senate Joint Resolution 3, introduced by Senator Bricker on January 7, 1957, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the legal effects of certain treaties and other international agreements. I have the honor to inform you that National Sojourners, Inc., because of its deep interest in the vital issues involved, desires to present its views for the consideration of the subcommittee. There is, therefore, enclosed a statement prepared for this purpose. It is respectfully requested that the statement be given consideration by your subcommittee and that it be attached to the records of the hearing. This organization appreciates this opportunity of submitting its views to you. Thanking you for your courtesy, I am, JOHN G. VOLZ, National Secretary-Treasurer. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL SOJOURNERS, INC., REGARDING A CONSTITUTIONAL This statement is submitted on behalf of National Sojourners, Inc., by Lt. Col. John G. Volz, as secretary-treasurer of that organization. It is submitted in connection with the hearing of the Standing Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments with respect to Senate Joint Resolution 3, introduced by Senator Bricker on January 7, 1957, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the legal effect of certain treaties and other international agreements. It is respectfully requested that the views here presented be considered by the subcommittee and that the statement be placed in the records of the hearing. National Sojourners appreciates the opportunity of presenting its views with respect to the grave matter under consideration, concerning, as it does, the preserving of the integrity of the Constitution of the United States and the rights of American citizens. National Sojourners, Inc., founded in 1919, is a nationwide, nonprofit, patriotic organization, composed of citizens of the United States who are Freemasons and who are, or have been, officers or warrant officers in our Armed Forces, including the National Guard and Reserve components of such forces. The membership of National Sojourners is distributed in some 340 chapters located in almost every State of the Union, with some located beyond our national borders. Organized with the primary purposes of developing true patriotism and opposing any influences calculated to weaken the national security, National Sojourners supports all efforts within our constitutional processes for achieving those aims. With these objects in view, there was submitted on April 27, 1955, by Brig. Gen. John W. N. Schulz, retired, then chairman of the national committee on Americanism of this organization, a statement for the hearings being held at that time by the Standing Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments relative to Senate Joint Resolution 1, introduced by Senator Bricker on January 6, 1955, which had the same general purpose as the present Senate Joint Resolution 3 now being considered by the subcommittee. In order to avoid undue repetition, the attention and consideration of your subcommittee is respectfully invited to the statement referred to National Sojourners still adheres to and supports the same views as those submitted by the previous statement in 1955. For a number of years, the members of National Sojourners have felt much concern because of the hazards of so-called treaty law. International measures being put forward in recent years, reaching into the domestic affairs of our country, might well result in profoundly affecting the Constitution and our internal law and in depriving American citizens of their constitutional liberties, one by one, through the device of treaties which, when ratified, become the first law of the land, or perhaps, as it is sometimes contended, through the device of international agreements which do not even receive consideration and ratification by the Senate. This organization, therefore, as far back as 1951 and 1952, adopted strong resolutions at its annual conventions at St. Louis, Mo., in 1951, and Baltimore, Md., in 1952, strongly urging adoption of an amendment to the Constitution to remedy this situation. Since 1952, National Sojourners has, by resolution at each successive annual convention, adopted a strong reaffirmation of the Baltimore resolution. At the 35th annual convention, at El Paso, Tex., in May 1955, the organization, reaffirming the earlier resolutions, stated as its position : "Our continued support of the effort to insure, by means of a constitutional amendment, that no treaty or executive agreement shall infringe upon the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights or those reserved by the Constitution to the States or the people; that no treaty or executive agreement, formal or informal, shall become effective as part of the internal law of the United States until it shall have been implemented by an act of Congress; that no law implementing a treaty or agreement may be passed by the Congress which would, in the absence of such treaty or agreement, be unconstitutional; and that no change in our form of government may be made by the device of treaty ratification." The position of National Sojourners in this most important matter has been only recently considered and once again reaffirmed at the 37th annual convention of the order, at New York City, in May of this year. As was stated in the statement, previously referred to, submitted to the Standing Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments on April 27, 1955, this organization recognizes that there are those who sincerely believe a constitutional amendment unnecessary, on the assumption that the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land already provides ample safeguards against the evils we fear. But, where decisions and opinions have differed on such a crucial point, and where the leading legal associations of the country assert the need, the members of our organization hold to the view that we must be sure, beyond any doubt, that our Constitution and rights shall not be imperiled. In view of the foregoing and the statement previously presented in April 1955, and in conformity with the repeatedly expressed position of National Sojourners on this momentous question, this organization urges and supports the adoption of a constitutional amendment which will surely safeguard the country against the hazards of "treaty law" which we believe to be present and of vital concern. We respectfully urge the favorable consideration by your subcommittee and by the entire Committee on the Judiciary of an adequate resolution and amendment looking to this end, and the adoption of such a resolution by the Senate. PERLMAN, LYONS AND BROWNING, WAYNE SMITHEY, Esq., Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SMITHEY: I am enclosing a statement to be incorporated in the record of the hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 3, the Bricker amendment. I appreciate your courtesies in this matter. Best wishes. Sincerely yours, PHILIP B. PERIMAN. STATEMENT BY PHILIP B. PERLMAN, FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES This is the fourth time I have submitted a statement to a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary opposing efforts to amend the Constitution of the United States, so as to limit the treaty power of the United States, and restrict the power of the President of the United States to make executive agreements. And this is the same language I used to begin my appearance against the proposed amendment in the 1st session of the 84th Congress. It was known then as it was throughout the 82d, 83d, 84th, and now the 85th Congress as the Bricker amendment, because it was first introduced and championed by Senator John W. Bricker of Ohio. Senate Joint Resolution No. 130, in the 82d Congress, was sponsored by 59 Senators, but did not come out of committee. Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 (the Bricker amendment), in the 83d Congress was sponsored by 64 Senators, but in the 84th Congress and now in the 85th Congress the Bricker amendment is sponsored by Senator Bricker alone. The technique of having a multiplicity of sponsors who fail to vote for the measure has apparently been abandoned, along with many features of the original version, once ardently championed but now ignored. There is pending before the subcommittee what is at least the seventh different version of the Bricker amendment. Six of these versions were described and opposed by me in my testimony before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary of the 84th Congress (Treaties and Executive Agreements, hearings, 84th Cong., 1st sess., on S. J. Res. 1, pp. 231-251). The seventh version is not exactly the same as the sixth, but the same unsound and detrimental principles and policies are repeated. The language in which the proposals are couched would, if adopted, require additional and new interpretations of the proposed new article, and any related provisions of the existing Constitution. As has been pointed out so many times to this and preceding committees, the proponents of these changes in the Constitution have failed to show the necessity, or even the desirability, of what is proposed. With the full record that has been made through so many hearings on Bricker amendments and amendments to Bricker amendments on the floor of the Senate, it would seem unnecessary to argue the matter further. The Senate has rejected the Bricker amendment, of whatever version, in so many ways, for so many years, that it is to be hoped that the 85th Congress will, by its vote, discourage the renewal of the effort to mangle the parts of the Constitution authorizing the making of treaties with other nations. THE BRICKER AMENDMENT Our Constitution needs the Bricker amendment because treaty law is now being used to modify and curtail, even destroy, our liberties. What is happening is that sinister forces throughout the world are busily at work trying to remake and transform the world into a gigantic totalitarian Socialist state. To accomplish this they are making use of treaties, declarations, pacts, covenants, and agreements, because they have discovered that there is a loophole in our Constitution whereby what is otherwise unconstitutional, can be made constitutional by adopting a treaty on the subject. In other words, they have discovered that it will be easier to override our domestic laws by treaties than it will be to change the laws by constitutional process. Thus they endeavor to circumvent our Constitution by treaties which become the supreme law of the land. We have recently experienced two outstanding examples of the abuse of treaty law: 1. The seizure of the steel industry by President Truman. 2. The plunge into war in Korea without benefit of Congress. President Truman claimed power for both of these unconstitutional acts under the authority of the United Nations Charter, which was adopted by the Senate as a treaty. If we accept this concept of the powers of a President, we shall have acquiesced in the growth of Presidential power to a height and scope never intended by the Founding Fathers. Such exaggerated Presidential power can have only one outcome: unbalanced powers and nullified checks, which will eventually lead to our destruction as a republic. Our governmental system of checks and balances has been our protection through the years of our existence, and the envy of the world. Let us maintain that system and not upset its balance by setting up a third legislative branch of our Government composed |