Bricker's Unbalanced Check

As Senator Bricker and those who support his proposed Constitutional amendment burrow into the basic law, they commit the United States to perpetual international conservatism. Bricker's proposal to limit presidential powers of treaty and agreement would hamstring our future in world government and injure immediate cooperation with allied nations.

Fearing betrayal of citizens' rights, Bricker would protect them from encroachments by presidential treaty or agreement. He would further forbid cession of governmental duties to any supra-national body. Ratified treaties would always require a second approval by Congress to become law. And full-blown treaties would replace the more informal executive agreements.

The amendment, so say its backers, would guarantee civil rights by specifically hoisting the Constitution above treaty law. In ending the executive agreement, which is a formal understanding not submitted for ratification, Bricker hopes to safeguard the public weal from presidential barter.

Actually, such precautions are superfluous. The Supreme Court, in the case of Missouri vs. Holland, indicated it had the right to declare any treaty unconstitutional. While the Court has never found this necessary, the principle of Constitutional supremacy is assured. Also, the right of citizens find protection in Congress' right to legislate the domestic effects of any treaty to death.

The amendment would further weaken already feeble ability to cooperate with other nations. The check and balance system, entrenches the executive in a welter of prohibitions. To make Senate approval a requisite for every diplomatic maneuver would immeasurably slow international agreement.

Behind the amendment is a spirit of hedging, not against present danger, but presumed future danger. It reveals a distrust of presidential motives and assumes an executive penchant for subverting national liberty.

When specific treaties appear, that is the time to ratify or reject. To prejudge them and set stiff conditions destroys much of their value, since by nature treaties rely on mutual trust and presumed freedom to bargain. The advantage of swift international agreement outweighs the needless caution of double-check treaties.

The proposed restrictions seem as much a slap at Roosevelt as a forward-looking admonition. The two-term 22nd amendment should have purged the conservatives of their ire; the 23rd should not be a similar emotional sop.