Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-01-31

more than LOO treaties ratified
since 1889 has been challenged as
unconstitutional.
But the business Of making inter-
national agreements is q complex
one, and to most persons, an unfa-
miliar one.
There are three principal types
Of agreements: Treaties, executive
agreements and administrative ar
rangements, which are the day-to.
day housekeeping decisions which
have to be made jointly with our
allies. friends and, occasionally, with
our enemies.
1t is difficult to say what sort Of
agreement should be handled
through treaty and which through
the less formal means. But the pic
ture can be made little more clear
by using examples: When end if
the Big Four decide on final settle
ment for Germany, the agreement
will be major. long-range pact in
the form Of a treaty. The previous
Big -Four decision to divide Germany
into four zones was an executive
agreement. And when the Big Four
decided to hold opening meetings Of
the present conference in the allied
sector and then move to the Soviet
sector, that was an administrative
arrangement.
And these international agree
ments take different forms. Some
deal only with matters abroad. Some
also have effect inside the United
States. When they do, under some
circumstances they have the same
force as Federal law. Some agree.
ments are "self-executing"
the effect of internal law as soon
as they are properly executed.
Others are "non-self executing"
Congress must pass some sort Of
measure putting them into effect
before they are valid internal law.
Senator Bricker claims the abuse
can occur when these agreements
become internal law.
Judicial RuIe-of- Thumb
But the courts have said: A treaty
cannot override the Constitution:
treaty can override a Fed
eral law. but, conversely, a later
Federal law can override a treaty
as internal law; a treaty can
override State law. Decisions on
executive agreements are not as
clear-cut. but recent court actions
indicate: An executive agreement
certainly cannot override the Con-
stitution; an executive agreement
cannot override Federal law. but.
on the other hand, Federal law can
" override an executive agreement az
internal law; under what circum-
stances an executive agreement can
override State law was not settled
by the two cases which touched on
that issue.
There are even more safeguards
against possible abuse.
Treaties must be approved by two
thirds of the Senate. No one could
imagine that SO Senators would let
socialism" slip in or the Bill Of
Rights slip out. And the Senators
are vigilant. Between 1889 and
March 26, 1858. 288 per cent of
all treaties submitted were either
rejected or modified by the Senate.
A further safeguard: The inn
plementing legislation for all nom
Self-executing treaties must be acted
on by both houses of Congress. And,
If Congress decides it does not like
the domestic effects of any treaty
already on the books, Congress can
nullify it by passing a simple law.
These same safeguards also apply
to executive agreements. Further
more. some IS per cent of such
agreements are made pursuant to
some joint directive of Congress
and the President.
If those safeguards are not enough.
Congress also has the power of the
purse. of investigation, of confirma-
ton of appointments and of i'm
parchment.
And back Of it all stand the courts.
ready to guard the Bill of Rights
down to the last comma. The voters,
of course, supervise the whole
process.
Secrer agreements
But what of the other objections?
How about secret executive agree
ments? Well, under an act of June
20, 1886 Several times subsequently
strengthened. all treaties and ex-
ecutive agreements must be pub
lished annually. In other words,
there can be no such secrets. And
Congress has the power to see the
law is complied with.
What about the migratory bird
case Missouri Us. Holldnd)? The
Supreme Court ruled that the Fed
eral Government could regulate
killing of birds if there was treaty
calling for such regulation; while
without the treaty. lower court
had said, the Federal Government
did not have such a right. There
was nothing sinister nor unconsti-
tutional about this. First, the Con-
Stitutior gives the executive the
power to make a treaty with the
consent of the Senate) concerning
matter Of international Importance
the killing of birds migrating be-
tween this country and Canada.
Second, the Constitution states that
1.-The Congress shall have the power
-. to make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the o.. powers vested
by this Constitution"
So the bird regulation was q
necessary and proper" act and did
not infringe upon any rights of the
States.
The founding fathers recognized
that this Nation must have relations
with other countries (much as the
Bricker people may dislike such
truck with foreigners). The power to
conduct those relations was given to
the executive, and at the same time
his power was surrounded by checks