Article IX of amendments to the Constitution provides:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Article X of the amendments provides:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There are now before you certain proposals for a constitutional amendment relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements, among them Senate Joint Resolution 1, by Senator Bricker, joined by 63 other Senators. With the intent of this resolution the American Legion is in accord, though not wedded to the exact language thereof. A part of that intent, as the American Legion understands it, is to make certain that the rights of the people of the United States, as enumerated in the Constitution, or as otherwise provided for therein, or as otherwise protected thereby, shall not be denied or disparaged by any treaty made by the President and concurred in by the Senate, the aforementioned provisions of subsection 1, article VI notwithstanding.

Senate Joint Resolution 1, as we understand it, would not so delimit the treatymaking powers now existent as to be wholly restrictive of the traditional, conventional treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation under which reciprocal rights abroad are granted to citizens of the United States and the other treaty-contracting power or powers. Such treaties are not restrictive of the constitutional rights of our people, but on the contrary additional rights so long as the treaties are effective and are a necessary part of comity between nations and peoples.

Senate Joint Resolution 1 would bar United States participation in world or regional government. If the amendment it proposes were adopted, no such participation would be permitted. If, in God's good time, the dim prospect of permanent world peace becomes reality, our people might then wish to consider the formation of a "Parliament of the World." If so, another constitutional amendment could be adopted, permitting participation. In such case the delay necessarily incident to the adoption of the new amendment would afford little enough time to our people to debate and ponder the momentous issues involved. At this day it would seem that proposals for world government, or of regional government, which would detract from the rights of our people and abridge the sovereignty of our Nation, are idle, if not evil, in the face of the awful and awesome realities of our times.

The American Bar Association proposes an amendment which likewise the American Legion favors as to intent, though not wedded to its exact language. This proposal, as we understand it, is consistent and in accord with sections 1, 3, and 4 of Senate Joint Resolution 1, but may not be consistent or in accord with section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1. It does not spell out a prohibition against United States participation in world or regional government as does section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1. If the American Bar proposal is intended to prohibit such participation, it may be that additional and different language is necessary.

We understand a number of other proposed amendments are before the subcommittee, but as yet we have not studied them and therefore, cannot comment thereon.

We submit our suggestions for amendments to accomplish the purposes, which we believe are comprised within Senate Joint Resolution 1, as follows:

"ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. No provision of a treaty which denies or disparages any right enumerated in or provided or protected by this Constitution shall be of any force or effect, any other provisions of this Constitution notwithstanding.

"SEC. 2. No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, have jurisdiction of or adjudicate any rights of citizens of the United States within the United States as such rights are enumerated in or provided or protected by this Constitution, nor shall any treaty have any force or effect as to any other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdictions of the United States.

"SEC. 3. No treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States except through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress.

"SEC. 4. Executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and the limitations imposed on treaties by this article."

In this language, quite tentative, we try to incorporate principles of both Senate Joint Resolution 1 and the American Bar Association proposal.

"The Constitution," we are told, "is remarkable for the brevity and exactness of its language. This is attributable in part to the thorough examination and discussion given to every article and sentence, and in part to the mastery of diction possessed by those who reduced the Constitution to its finally accepted form." It may be thought that the suggested amendment is more wordy than necessary, and if so, we suggest consideration of the following, which is an adaptation of the American Bar Association proposal:

"ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 2 of article VI of this Constitution, a provision of a treaty which conflicts with any other provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 2 of article VI of this Constitution, a treaty shall not become effective as internal law in the United States except through legislation enacted by the Congress.

"SEC. 2. Executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and to limitations imposed on treaties by this article."

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Downer of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

STATEMENT OF ADIN M. DOWNER, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Senator DIRKSEN. You are Mr. Downer?
Mr. DOWNER. Yes, sir.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Downer, did you want to submit a statement or have you a statement to present?

Mr. DOWNER. I have a brief statement here, Senator, which I would like to offer for the record, and at your pleasure I shall either read it or comment upon it.

Senator DIRKSEN. If it is not too long you can do either. I suppose it is a couple of pages long?

Mr. DOWNER. Yes, sir.

Senator DIRKSEN. Why not read it, but, first, give your name and address and your identification for purposes of the record.

Mr. DOWNER. My name is Adin M. Downer, assistant legislative representative, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

On February 6, 1952, the National Council of Administration of the Veterans of Foreign Wars endorsed Senate Joint Resolution 130 of the 82d Congress, which action was made known to this committee in hearings on that resolution in May of 1952. Subsequently, our 53d National Encampment, which is the supreme governing body of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, unanimously adopted Resolution No. 227, endorsing Senate Joint Resolution 130.

This action by our organization was an endorsement of the general principles embodied in the resolution rather than a recommendation for strict adherence to the exact language contained therein. Our attention to the question involved was first attracted by the testimony of the distinguished representatives of the American Bar Association before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the U. N. Genocide Convention was under consideration. The purpose of our organization was to lend its voice in protest to the threatened establishment of a body of domestic or internal law by treaty and the consequent invasion of certain human rights and liberties which have al

ways been protected by our Constitution. We have not seen specifically concerned with section 4 of the resolution relating to executive agreements and I wish to state that we prefer to rely upon the sound judgment of this committee and the Senate of the United States in regard to that portion of the resolution.

The controversy surrounding that portion of the resolution which seeks to limit the treaty-making power is largely an argument between lawyers as to a proper interpretation of the Constitution. We can hardly classify ourselves as authorities on constitutional law so as to take part in this purely legal controversy. However, I should like to point out to the committee that no single opponent of this resolution has advocated the adoption of internal or domestic law by treaty. The controversy is rather one involving a difference of opinion as to whether or not a proper interpretation of the Constitution would permit such a result. The opinions of many distinguished lawyers on this proposition appear to be in disagreement so that we must all recognize a very real doubt exists. And I think there is really the crux of the situation, Senator. In the face of such doubt and since all interested parties appear to oppose legislation by treaty, it seems that the only intelligent course to pursue is the safe course. We should not gamble with our precious rights and liberties by permitting the continued existence of any system that threatens their destruction.

The

The witnesses who appeared in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 130 in the 82d Congress appeared to protest the approval of that resolution on the principal ground that it was not necessary. eminent Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr., specifically, and other witnesses impliedly, treated the decision of the California Court of Appeals in the Fujii case very lightly because of its subsequent reversal, and I might say apparently because they also considered it bad law. However, in so doing, Professor Chafee seemed to admit that if a higher court should reestablish the decision of the California Court of Appeals, this constitutional amendment would be desirable. We submit that such a course of action is too much like locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen and we suggest to this committee that the door should now be definitely and effectively locked by the approval of Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Briefly, that sums up our position, Senator. While I am a member of the bar of the State of Kansas and also the State of California, and not a student of constitutional law, and not wishing to enter that purely legal controversy, we merely wanted to point out to the committee the position of our organization and the fact that it does seem, so far as the treaty limitations are concerned, to have gotten down to a question on which laymen are properly qualified to express an opinion, and that is, that there is a doubt. Everybody can see that. Distinguished lawyers have disagreed on it, and since there is doubt, just don't take any chances.

Senator DIRKSEN. That is a very clear and succinct statement, and we thank you.

Mr. DOWNER. Thank you, sir.

Senator DIRKSEN. The next witness is Mr. George P. Delaney of the American Federation of Labor. Is Mr. Delaney here?

(There was no response.)

Senator DIRKSEN. Is Mr. James Watt of the Christian Science Committee on Publication here? Mr. Watt, will you come forward, please?

STATEMENT OF JAMES WATT, MANAGER, WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION

Mr. WATT. I have a brief statement that I would like to read. Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Watt, will you first give your full name and address and your occupation to the reporter?

Mr. WATT. My name is James Watt. I am the manager of the Washington, D. C., office of the Christian Science Committee on Publication, with offices in the Christian Science Building, 1601 I Street NW. I am authorized by the Christian Science Board of Directors, the governing board of the Christian Science Church, to make the following statement regarding Senate Joint Resolution 1 proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements, introduced in the 83d Congress by Senator Bricker of Ohio.

We strongly support the basic purposes of Senator Bricker's resolution. We believe the importance of protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from being undermined by international agreements, not made in accordance with our constitutional procedures, cannot be too strongly emphasized. While we are not prepared at the present time to endorse the exact wording of the resolution, we are supporting the position that some protective action is required. and that a thorough discussion of the question is needed in order that all the issues involved may be clearly understood and considered.

It may be that refinements in the wording of this resolution should be made. We would not object to this as long as the purpose of protecting the freedom and rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights is attained.

We are aware that these basic rights are threatened because as the Constitution now stands, it does not prevent them from being changed by a treaty, a change which even Congress itself is prevented from making under the Bill of Rights. We feel deeply that these inherent and precious rights and freedoms must not be overlaid with a pattern of international so-called rights drawn to suit the concepts of more than 60 nations with varying and antagonistic concepts. We urge that it be made impossible to give up our concept of inherent rights and acquiesce to the premise that rights are conferred on the individual by government and hence can be taken away by government.

We, like others who have already given eloquent and comprehensive testimony before this committee in support of a constitutional amendment relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements, are gravely concerned:

(1) Over the situation revealed by Mr. John Foster Dulles, now Secretary of State, in an address before the American Bar Association last year, when he said:

Treaties

The treatymaking power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse. make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are, indeed, more supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights.

(2) That the State Department has officially said: "There is no longer any real difference between 'domestic' and 'foreign' affairs."

(3) That the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in his dissent in the Steel Seizure case advanced the doctrine that the United Nations Charter and other international treaties and commitments give the President of the United States authority to seize private property. Such a doctrine would give the President not only powers not granted to him by the Constitution but powers even denied him by the Constitution.

These are but a few of the reasons we are impelled to support the purpose of Senator Bricker's resolution and to urge Congress to take suitable action promptly.

Let me discuss briefly another threat to individual and religious freedom which has not been explored so far in these hearings. By a joint resolution of Congress, we have become members of WHO-the United Nations World Health Organization. Under the constitution of WHO, by which we are bound, regulations having the force of both international and domestic law can be adopted without approval, not to mention legislation by our Congress. In fact, a set of international sanitary regulations drawn up by WHO went into effect in the United States on October 1, 1952, without ratification by the Senate or legislative action by Congress. United Nations officials refer to the code as a "new kind of world law." The United States Public Health Service is even now busily engaged in revising the administrative regulations (which have the force of domestic law) to conform with these new international regulations. In doing this, we are told by the present Chief of Foreign Quarantine Division of the United States Public Health Service that a regulation which my office worked out several years ago with the former Chief to give recognition to religious rights, is to be eliminated.

Here is a concrete example of how religious rights, protected by our own domestic regulations, are being threatened by the ability of a Government agency to change domestic law to make it conform with international agreement. For the detailed story of this situation, I would like to introduce into the record a reprint of an article titled "Pattern for Cumpulsory Medication," which ran in the September 26, 1952, issue of the Christian Science Monitor, and an editorial from the same issue, titled "Stop, Look, and Question." The editorial concludes:

This newspaper does not wish to be alarmist. As we understand it, WHO is alone among United Nations agencies in its power to legislate for member nations. We believe that the rights of individuals and States under the American Constitution can be protected from infringement by an international organization or through treaties. But the situation now precipitated by WHO indicates that a properly framed constitutional amendment may be required.

The State Department has attempted to rebut this article, but in our view, their statement, which I also submit for the record, substantially strengthens the position we take and confirms the dangers we point out. This view is set forth in a memorandum which I would like to have included in the record as part of my statement, and I shall not read it, but I do want to point out just 2 or 3 paragraphs that point up what we mean. On page 3 of this memorandum, in the fourth paragraph, we say:

A major weakness is the use of the word "government"