Evening star., 1944-11-30
Treaty Problem Held
Due to ] enure System

Due to ] Tenure System
Senate Certain to Block Proposal
For Majority Vote, Says Writer
By David Laurence
Proponents of an amendment to the
Constitution whereby treaties would bs
ratified by q majority vote of both
houses Of Congress instead Of by a two
thirds vote in the Senate are pointing
out that no other country insists on .
two-thirds vote.
Other countries, however, do not have
rigid system Of tenure for the execu-
tive nor for the legislative body. II
those who are sponsoring the proposed
congressional amendment would add to
1t provision enabling the people in
stantly to remove or threaten to remove
from ONCE the legislators or the execu-
tive or both, just as Is the case in Can
ada, much Of the difficulty surrounding
the problem of ratifying treaties prob
ably would be eliminated.
Thus, the House Of Commons ratifies
treaty by majority vote, but II the
House Is not accurate in its interpreta-
ton Of public opinion 1t can be re-
moved overnight by the people. This
means that when ratification is given,
1t actually does represent the public
opinion Of the country and not merely
the desire of the executive or the Par
lament.
Certain to Be Blocked.
While our House Of Representatives
might pass the proposed constitutional
amendment for = majority vote in rat
flying treaties the Senate Is certain to
block 1t. The Senate, on the other hand,
has never had before it . proposal to
institute = system Of parliamentary
government along with the change in
the method Of ratifying treaties. There
could hardly be any objection to q
majority vote In ratifying treaties II
the members Of both houses were made
responsible to public opinion under the
parliamentary method.
The present two-thirds rule operates
30 that minority can block ratification
Of . treaty, and this has long been
recognized by both Republicans and
Democrats as 4 defect In our consti-
tutional system. With the numerous
changes that have happened in world
Affairs and the possibility that war
might be declared overnight, q legis-
lative body that is not instantly re-
sponsive to public opinion or an ex-
ecutive who can act without consulting
the legislative body presents dangers
sometimes to the public welfare that
were not foreseen by the trainers OF
the Constitution.
Thus, there is much discussion already
Of . proposal whereby the treaty that
Is to come out Of the Dumbarton Oaks
conference is to be ratified by . two
thirds vote Of the Senate but . Joint
resolution requiring only majority vote
OF Congress is to be introduced author
izing the President to use our armed
forces In certain contingencies when the
peace Of the world Is threatened.
During the recent political campaign
the issue was confused by those who in
sisted on pledges from members of
Congress to the effect that they would
vote Tor q resolution authorizing the
American delegate to agree to the use
OF our armed forces with the under
standing that no further reference of
the matter to Congress would be neces-
sary. Actually, this is a complete mis-
understanding Of the powers of Con-
gress.
There Is no way by which the present
Congress, after passing the joint resolu-
ton authorizing the Executive to deploy
our armed forces, can bind a succeeding
Congress. No matter how the joint
resolution is worded, any succeeding
Congress, four, six or ten years hence,
can repeal or amend the joint resolu-
ton, and this, OF course, would mean a
reconsideration by Congress itself The
only way to prevent such an additional
step and to insure that the United
states Will agree to Use our armed
forces without further reference is to
change the Constitution to provide for
exactly that method Of handling the
problem.
Unequal Advancement.
The government of Great Britain is
able to make . pledge that it will use
its armed forces in support OF the pre-
posed League Of Nations, but at any
time the House Of Commons can change
Its mind. To insist that the Congress
OF the United States should have its
hanos tied but that every other
parliamentary body should be free to
change its mind is to propose an un-
equal arrangement. Actually, however,
unless . constitutional amendment is
adopted, Congress could vote to repeal
or amend any act of q preceding Con-
sress that pledged the use of our armed
forces in future contingencies.
Incidentally, if q "joint" instead Of
concurrent" resolution Is adopted. it
cannot be repealed as against
presidential veto unless two-thirds of
both houses override the veto. This
means, If Congress decides on a Joint
resolution, that two-thirds vote of
both houses will be necessary to change
the pledge. Hence the present asita-
ton for repeal Of the two thirds rule
OF the Senate in ratifying treaties may
really wind up by requiring a two-thirds
rule instead Of = majority to prevent
the Executive from plunging the Ma.
ton into war.
This Is why 1t may be freely pre-
dicted that Congress will not consent
to joint resolution but will insist on