Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-05-08
'Bricker Amendment

were critical of the Bricker
Amendment as reported out on
March 5 by the Senate Judi
ciary Committee by a vote of
IL to 2, with two ASSERTIONS.
The criticized text reads as
follows:
"a provision of treaty or
other international agreement
which conflicts with any pro-
vision of this Constitution
shall not be of any force or
effect"
Stressing the three words
"any provision of" in the body
of the new text, the writers.
who are obviously opposed to
any amendment, attach to
them some deceptive meaning.
whereas it should be plain that
if a provision of a treaty vio-
lates ANY provision of" the
Constitution, it violates the
Constitution, and if it violates
the Constitution. it must be so
because it violates some pro-
vision of the Constitution.
From the earliest times the
Supreme Court has required all
constitutional challenges to be
directed to particular constitu-
tional provisions.
The text containing those
three words is said to be bad
because it would. forbid the
Supreme Court to apply the
principle that the only limit
on the treaty making power is
that a treaty be made in the
manner prescribed by the Con-
stitution," namely. by the
President. with approval by
the Senate, without any con-
stitutional limitations on its
contents-an alleged "princl-
pie" that has no foundation
except in a dubious and gra-
tultous dictum uttered in the
case of Missouri V. Holland
1920. a dictum that is widely
challenged and in conflict with
earlier Supreme Court de-
cisions; that the text is bad
because a treaty, in its con-
tents. should be permitted TO
override provisions Of the Con-
stitution: and that Congress
should have power to imple-
ment treaties that violate the
Constitution with statutes that
violate the Constitution; ana
that neither treaties nor Con-
qresS. when implementlng
treaties, should be confineo
within constitutional bounds.
This is on a par with an edi-
torial in the New York Times
of April 8, 1858. reading az
follows:
1.-The resolution (the Bricker
Amendment) is dangerous be-
cause it forbids any treaty
that would allow any foreign
power or any international or
sanitation meaning the U. N.
or one of it's agencies) to con-
troll the constitutional rights
of American citizens within
the United States or any other
matter essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of the
United States"
1t is doubtless just such ar
guments as have persuaded the
supporters of the Bricker
Amendment to press for its
adoption.
People who believe in con-
stitutional limitations and in
the concept that all govern
mental action was intended by
the Founding Fathers to be
subject to the Constitution will
not condemn the Bricker pro-
| posal. 1t seems a safe forecast
that this includes vast ma
jority of the American people.
The only question anyone
needs to answer for himself
is: Are you in favor Of treaties
that conflict with any provi-
sion Of the Constitution OF the
United States? In other words,
do you favor a treaty negoti-
ated by the President tmean-
ing. in practice, the State De-
partment0 and ratified by the
Senate which could on occa-
sion be President-controlled)
which takes away any Of your
constitutional rights? What
would you think Of a treaty
that deprived you Of trial by
Jury in criminal cases, as
Patrick Henry feared? What
would you think OF treaties
limiting freedom of the press
such as have recently been
under serious negotiation by
the Government under the
highsounding but deceptive
names of Covenant on Free
dom of Information. and
Convention on international
Transmission Of News and
Right OF Correction, until they