Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1953-04-12
Mr.. Brokers Resolution

powers is found in this comment by Secretary
of State Dulles "The test of any constitution
Is not the way it reads but the way it works"
A short answer, however, is not enough.
The Bricker resolution, formally known as
S. j. Res. l, proposes a constitutional amend
ment to guard against possible future abuse of
the treaty-making power. 1t has been Endorsed
by ga senators-two-t thirds of the Senate. 1t
also conforms in most, though not in all, re-
spects to proposal advanced by the American
Bar Association.
These circumstances alone would be enough
to caution against any attempt at casual dis
nissal of the Brcker resolution. There are, in
addition, other developments which have en-
couraged support of the Bricker proposal.
In recent years there has been tendency
In some quarters to look to treaties as the
instruments for effectuating social reforms
which run counter to our traditional concepts.
Some of these proposed treaties or interna-
tional conventions, if ratified without change,
would undoubtedly nullify existing legislation
In this country and might possibly be con-
strued to supersede some provisions of the
Constitution.
These are the principal considerations lend
ing responsiveness to the Bricker resolution.
And they are entitled to respectful considera-
ton.
In The Stars judgment, however, the rati-
hcation Of the Bricker proposal as an amend.
ment to the Constitution would be a tragic
mistake-a grievous blunder which would need
lessly cripple the Presidents treaty-making
power at time when our national survival
may depend on the wise exercise of that power
without the inhibitory effects of new and I'M
necessary restraints.
The reasons upon which this view rests are
as old as our constitutional history and as new
as last weeks newspaper.
The treaty-making system spelled out in
the Constitution has been in effect since its
adoption in 1889. For 100 years it has worked
we'll And as Mr.. Dulles says, the real test of
a constitutional provision is the way it works,
not the way 1t reads
Of course, from time to time there have
been dsagreements between Presidents and
Congresses. But the significant thing is that
the advocates of the amendment do not point
to any case in which the Supreme Court, ruling
on the construction or effect of treaty, has
held any such agreement to be superior to the
Constitution. On the contrary, the court has
repeatedly emphasized that treaties are sub
ordinate to the Constitution.
The supporters of the Bricker resolution
have no serious quarrel with any treaty rati-
fed by this country. Their stand very largely
rests on fear of what may happen in the fu-
ture And this, in The Stars belief, Is fear
that is not warranted by facts.
Only last week Secretary Dulles announced
that this administration does not intend to sign
the u N. Convention on Human Rights and
that it does not intend to submit similar con-
ventions to the Senate. In other words, thanks
in considerable measure to the efforts of Sena-
tor Bricker in bringing the matter to public
notice the tendency to try to accomplish by
treaty what could not otherwise be accom-
plished has been checked and reversed.
Furthermore, the Senate always has had
and has today, full power to append reserva-
tons to treaty which would deprive it of any
internal effect The business community, for
instance, is seriously concerned with the pos
sible effect in this country OF conventions
adopted by the International Labor Organiza-
ton. Some of these have been submitted to the
Senate for ratification and they might super
sede existing law if adopted in their present
form. If the Senate sees fit to ratify them at
all, however, it can guard against this result
by writing reservations into the conventions
Some apprehension also has been expressed
regarding the possible effect of executive agree
mentS which may be made by the President
without valuation as treaties by the Senate
or without statutory augmentation by both
Senate and House. The proposed amendment
would curb this presidential power. 1t Is diff
ficult to see any need for such curb how
ever, since, as Mr.. Dulles mas stated, W1LnOuC
either Senate or congressional action, these
agreements cannot constitutionally become the
law of the land"
In summary, it may be conceded that there
is always possibility that the treaty making
power as it stands today, may be abused.
Equally, other powers vested by the Constitu-
ton in the President, or in the Congress for
that matter, may some day be abused. But no
one is seriously proposing constitutional amend
mentS to guard against every conceivable
kind Of anticipatory abuse.
The fact which stands out above all others
with respect to the Bricker resolution is that
in 100 years there has been no significant
abuse of the treaty power. If language can be
worked out which would guard against the
possibility of future abuse without at the same
time Gripping the President in the conduct of
foreign affairs, well and good But the Bricker
resolution, if frozen into the Constitution in
substantially its present form, would have this
Gripping effect. Senators who have followed
the hearings on the resolution know full we'll
how seriously Gripping such an amendment
would be, and how adverse its certain results
would be to the interests of this country. There
will always be opportunity to amend the Con-
stitution If and when real abuse materializes.
Meanwhile, The Star hopes the Senators will