Constitutional Amendment Only Ejlective Protection Against Treaty Law

By Fronk E. Holmon, of Seotfle Post President of Ainericon Bor Associotion

The result of all the dicta and decisions of our courts, coupled with the avalanche of United Nations treaties now being proposed, many of the provisions of which, if valid, would supersede or override our Constitution as well as our dornestic laws, has been to lead to the conclusion on the part of many lawvers, including the American Bar Association, that the only way to make sure that a treaty shall not authorize what the Constitution forbids is to adopt a Constutional Amendment stating this proposition in plain and simple English. The treatymakers and the courts, as well as the American people, will then at long last know and recognize that there is no further doubt that a treaty, like a law of Congress, to be valid must not violate any provisions of the Constitution.

In connection with this grave issue it should be pointed out clearly that if our laws on the question is not settled and we drift along to where, following the doctrine of N{issouri V. Holland, it is established by the courts that a treaty can change or amend the Constitution of the United States, then the "internationalists" can by treaties accomplish the following results:

(a) Change our form of government from a Republic to a socialistic and completely centrallized state.

(b) They can put us into a World Government without the people either directlv or through the Congress passing on tl-re question.

(c) It can increase the powers of the Federal Government at the expense of the States. For example, in the so-called field of civil rights, a treaty can do what the Congress has therefore refused to do. The Congress has to date refused to enact the President's Civil Rights Program. To get around this, in spite of Congress, the I'resident's Committee on Civil Rights now proposes that the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations incorporate the President's program in treaty forrn and thus circumvent the Congress (Civil Rights Committee Repoit, paragraph 10).

(d) A treaty can seriously affect our basic individual rights as, for example, the right of a citizen to be tried in Arnerican courts and under the protection of "due process." This was openly asserted in the Report of the Section of International and Cornparative Lalv to the House of Delegates of-the American Bar Association in February, 1952, where it was stated:

"So far as the requirement of indictment by grand jury and trial by jury are concerned, these apply only to trials in the federal courts, and can have no application to ar-r international court set up by a group of nations in the exercise of their treaty-making polver-there is no reason lvhy such courts may not be created in the exercise of the treatymaking power."

In other words, it is already being claimed, that under the treaty-making po\ver provisions may be made for the trial of American citizens abroad, for offenses committed here, by methods and in places (See Sixth Amendment) which the Constitution forbids.

Our forefathers fought a revolution that we might be free and independent to make our own laws and to govern ourselves. But now with the turn of the wheel of history and through the United Nations organization our laws are to be made by and through treaties concluded in the United Nations where the representatives of other nations have a majority voice in what these treaties shall cover both as to language and content. We are to be governed in our local affairs by laws and concepts agreeable to a majority of the other nations of the world. We are taxed to pay the expenses of these new lawmakers for we pay a very large part of the expenses of the United Nations and its various agencies. As already pointed out uucler the provisions of the Genocide Convention and the proposed new treaty for an International Criminal Court, our citizens are to be transported over-seas for trial. Make no mistake about it, this and much more is the program of those who woulcl govern us by "Treaty Law."

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Americans in their great desire for safety and peace should not be fooled into sacrificing either their individual freedonrs or their integrity as a nation, for we can easily lose our rights and freedoms in the entanglements of international commitrrents and agreements if we permit our basic rights under the Constitution and our orvn Bill of Rights to be rewritten, leveled out, compromised and confused by nebulous and ambiguous United Nations "treaties." We can also lose our independence and integrity as a nation-financially, politically and militarily -through loose and general international committments bypassing such Constitutional provisions as that giving Congress the sole power "to declare war," which power now in the Korean situation seems to have been taken over by the lrresident acting by and through the Security Council of the United Nations.

The only effective protection against all these dangers of "Treaty Law" is an appropriate Constitutional Amendment. The text of the Constitutional Amendment should be designed to do at least three things, which, stated in simple language are as follows:

1. It should provide that no treaty is valid which conflicts with the Constitution of the United States. (In other rvorcls, our treaties should be subject to the Constitution.)

2. No treaty is to be effective until irnplemented by legislation. (This merely puts the United States on a par lvith other nations as to the initial effect of a treaty.)

3. No such legislation shall be valid if cor.rtrary to or in (Continued on Page 18)