diction nor case is som foregoing g its reasoni with Miss In Does that the (

The tre of justice violate th

In II Court been r were !

***

arisin the s Fol tio. the

tre

a'

t:

to make a little stateamendment to protect the dangers of "treaty y the following purposes

or executive agreement sent with the Constitution cal constitutional effect to Aming decisions, to the effect ge the Federal jurisdiction aking power," and that no Constitution or which is inment of the United States or The United States, shall be valid Pet. 662, 736); The Cherokee To v. Joy (17 Wall. 211, 243); De

): and see Asakura v. Seattle es drawn by some persons from and U. S. v. Curtiss-Wright Cor that the treaty power is unlimited Constitution, should be unqualifiedly and any doubt on this score be for States v. Pink (315 U. S. 203, 233-4) event a treaty or executive agreement the United States by force of its selfment should make all treaties non-self. aw is concerned until implementing leg. De amendment should remove the doubt executing or non-self-executing from the

and make the internal effectiveness of States depend exclusively on implement

ted out in this connection, in almost every e world except the United States, each country *»d to what extent it wishes to implement a

egislation even though such signatory State to eset such legislation. (Report, peace and er 1950, pp. 9 to 12.)

is the only important country that faces the at on, except possibly France and Mexico that is gst us, if I may say so, but France is not a federal

France has no bill of rights like we have, and So I merely point that out. As I say, upon ey are not true exceptions, but when a treaty is ratironal process by the President with the consent of sons automatically becomes a part of the supreme Hence, in the United States when an international the United Nations Charter, or the genocide convenevenant on human rights, is ratified as a treaty, it may v ssc crey ely ordinance, every county ordinance, every State e. See constitution, and every Federal statute on the same Adder the logical result of the Holmes doctrine in MisHolland, it may enlarge and amend the Constitution wasd States

The amendment should limit the language of the decision of Missouri against Holland, supra, by making it clear that in legislating respect of treaties, Congress shall have no power which it does not ady have under the Constitution, apart from its power to carry aties into effect under the "necessary and proper clause" of the sutution art. I, sec. 8). The amendment should take care of - broad language in U. S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, supra 292 U. S. 304), where the language of the Court espouses the theory f unrestricted inherent Federal power in the field of international

4 The amendment should make it inescapably clear that the limions on Congress in the first amendment that "Congress shall make law" cannot be escaped by use of the treatymaking power or by utive agreement under the claim that the President and Senate e a separate agency for treatymaking and are not subject to contutional limitations on Congress. (See report of committee on eace and law, September 1, 1950, pp. 40-41.) Some critics say that a y amendment accomplishing the foregoing purposes and objectives ld prevent the proper exercise of the treatymaking power in the ternational field-that such an amendment would abridge the power he United States to make treaties of commerce, of navigation and of friendship and the power to make many other traditional types of raties. This argument is fully disposed of in the February 1952 Port of the committee on peace and law, pages 14 to 17, inclusive, 4 the matter has been dealt with at greater length in an article aring in the June 1952 issue of the American Bar Association al by Dr. George A. Finch, an eminent authority on treaties and the editor of the American Journal of International Law. Several different drafts of amendments have been proposed but for

eity and directness of language I believe this text now recomeded by the American Bar Association's committee on peace and best meets the objective of protecting American rights and the Lerican form of government. An increasing number of lay orzations have approved the proposal for such a constitutional dment. These now include such organizations as the American Lyon, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Marine Corps League of erica, service clubs, and many other organizations. And I would > to introduce the list because it is rather formidable. I would se to now introduce a list of organizations that officially support the stitutional amendment.

1

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

The list referred to is as follows:)

**IATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS OFFICIALLY SUPPORTING THE PROPOSAL FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS Zerican Bar Association: The following State Bar associations have ally adopted resolutions favoring a constitutional amendment on treaty Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Misppi, Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, xas, Washington

Atonal Association of Attorneys General-This is highly significant because this Association represents the chiefs of the legal departments of each of the 48 Def Cowing State legislatures have passed resolutions favoring a constitutional amendment on treaty law: California, Colorado, Georgia, Wyoming.

cee Conference on National Defense, representing Amaters throughout the United States:

Sisters, Inc.

er Constitutional Security

angters of the Revolution

Otters of the Union 1861-1865, Inc.

New England Women

24. Sedie Women of America, Inc.

Service Star Legion, Inc.

Worren Descendants of the Ancient and Honorable དྷ$$ %® ?¢ ?

aar's Relief Corps Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the

ASA Auxiliary

lors Clað of America

Ory Colony, National Society of New England Women

Ssers of the U. S. Navy

eva' Gold Star Mothers, Inc.

Joe of ProgTENS

Ses Army Mothers

ove the Army and Navy Legion of Valor of the U. S. A.

ex Nacional Defense Committee of Philadelphia

estec merely local organizations throughout the United States have A COMA De Proposal for a constitutional amendment.

PRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES

lå er bes not passed a formal resolution for a constitutional amendment, The Che Cher of Commerce of the United States first through a special committee stody the subject, then through its standing committee on policy, ix whole body of delegates at its annual meeting in April of last year ve and oestly understandable language adopted the following policy with be processes of making international agreements and with respect to The AOC On domestic law of such agreements:

No provision of a treaty or of an executive agreement that alters or #brid sew the Constitution of the United States shall become effective unless such a'eration or change is embodied in a constitutional amendment adopted and tarried in the manner provided in that Constitution for its amendment.

B. No provision of a treaty or of an executive agreement that alters or abridges the r.zits protected by the laws of the United States or the Constitution or laws fe several States shall become effective unless and then only to the extent 2. COL-Tess shall so provide.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

The National Association of Manufacturers has officially adopted a declaration y similar to that adopted by the United States Chamber of Commerce. Mr. HOLMAN. This movement, if I may say so, is now a matter of rest not merely to lawyers but to great organizations like the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Marine Corps e of America, service clubs and many organizations as shown ce list introduced.

Iie is a widespread national interest in the matter, calling for y action by the Congress.

I believe the foregoing text is best because in simple and underndable language, without unduly restricting treaty-making power, eets the following minimum requirements to protect American rts State and individual) against treaties and executive agreents for it clearly provides

1. That no provision of a treaty which conflicts with a provision f the Constitution of the United States is valid.

2. That no treaty is effective until implemented by legislation. This merely puts the United States on a par with other nations as the initial effect of a treaty.)

3. That no legislation shall be valid if contrary to or in excess of the powers delegated to the Congress by the Constitution.

4. That executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and to the limitations imposed on treaties.

In my opinion, a constitutional amendment along the foregoing nes is necessary to protect American rights and to preserve the American form of government. I believe it will have the support of large majority of Americans and in due course will receive the apval of the necessary three-fourths of the States.

Now, I prepared, Senator Bricker, a comment on your text. I Etated that early this morning. I would like to put that in and comment on it at the moment. I have indicated the broad line at I think the amendment should cover. This is a separate memodum in re Senate Joint Resolution 1. I will first quote you Senate Jent Resolution 1 so it is before you conveniently, so you don't have ive it on a separate sheet:

SECTION 1. A provision of a treaty which denies or abridges any right enuerated in this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

SC. 2. No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any ational organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate rights of citizens the United States within the United States enumerated in this Constitution other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United

SE 3. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United as only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress. S. 4. All executive or other agreements between the President and any Zernational organization, foreign power, or official thereof, shall be made only zeranner and to the extent to be prescribed by law. Such agreements ..he subject to the limitations imposed on treaties, or the making of treaties, - article.

5 The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate

sation.

SEC. 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

COMMENTS ON SECTION 1

In my opinion, section 1, in its phrasing, falls short of protecting American rights (State and individual) against the dangers of "treat y law" in merely providing that

A provision of a treaty which denies or abridges any right enumerated in this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

The language is insufficient to act as a protective constitutional shield against the invasion of many basic rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution protects many rights not enumerated in that instrument. The ninth amendment, for example, provides that

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

On this subject and others the Constitution itself protects nonenumerated rights. Also, the 10th amendment protects nonenumerated rights by providing that

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.

One such basic right is the right to determine its law of property. For example, some States have community property, others different laws with respect to the acquisition, ownership, and enjoyment of property, which are not enumerated in the Constitution.

The phrasing, in my judgment, fails to take into account the constitutional concepts contained in both the 9th and 10th amendments. The American Bar Association draft does this and therefore would seem preferable. It provides "a provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect." This simple provision adequately takes care of those very important rights and powers covered by the 9th and 10th amend

ments.

Even many of those who are pronounced opponents of any "treaty law" amendment have not quarreled with the language of the first sentence of the American Bar proposal. For the most part our critics have merely said that a constitutional amendment to that particular effect is unnecessary because already any provision of a treaty which actually conflicted with the Constitution would be held invalid by the courts which we of course think is at least sufficiently doubtfulthat the only way to be sure of it, is to have a protective constitutional amendment that will make it sure for all time.

Senator BRICKER. I might say in connection with that that we want. a first sentence all-inclusive of all rights observed by American people, whether observed or granted or what not.

Mr. HOLMAN. Don't misunderstand me. We agree with your objective and you agree with ours. I think it would be helpful. Senator BRICKER. I think it is.

Mr. HOLMAN. That instead of having loose talk by we people in the American Bar, if I just put it down. This is not the American Bar. This is just Frank Holman.