A New Bricker Amendment

Many Americans, led by Ohio's Republican Senator John Bricker, fear that the U.S. Constitution's treaty-making provision can be abused to violate the liberties of citizens. Bricker has proposed several amendments (TIME, July 13, 1953 et seq.) aimed at closing what he deems to be a dangerous constitutional loophole; in 1954, one version of the Bricker Amendment failed of Senate adoption by a single vote. Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee, voting n to 2, approved and sent to the Senate for action this year a new proposed treaty amendment to the Constitution. Its sponsor of record: Illinois' Republican Senator Everett Dirksen. Its actual author: able Lawyer John Bricker.

The amendment seems simple. Its key sentence: "A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect."

In their first studies of the new proposal, opponents of previous Bricker amendments thought they saw a danger in the three words, "any provision of." The test of a treaty's validity, they argued, should be in the Constitution as an organic whole instead of in its separate sections. Said Missouri's Democratic Senator Thomas C. Hennings: "Under the Dirksen substitute, a provision of the Constitution could be torn from its context and used as the sole test of a treaty's validity. Furthermore, the proposed amendment would seem to apply to all existing as well as future treaties.

"For example, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states and the people powers not otherwise delegated to the Federal Government. Tested against that provision alone, it is possible that more than 30% of the treaties made by the U.S. since 1789 might be ruled invalid. Our basic treaties of friendship and commerce, our consular conventions, extradition treaties, migratory bird treaties, road traffic conventions and narcotics control treaties might run afoul of the new wording. In any event, their validity might be put under a cloud for a number of years. These treaties are the lifeblood of our relationships with other friendly nations. They deal--and must continue to deal--with matters which are constitutionally reserved to the states in the absence of treaty."

John Bricker and his supporters prepared their arguments for presentation to the Senate. Hennings and other Bricker opponents readied themselves for concentrated study of the new proposal. One of the basic constitutional debates of this century was ready for its 1956 round.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.