Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, General: Economic and Political Matters, Volume I, Part 2

Eisenhower Library, Dulles papers, “Bricker Amendment”

The President to John J. McCloy¹

personal

Washington, January 13, 1954.

Dear Jack: Thank you very much for your telegram regarding the so-called Bricker Amendment.² I hasten to assure you that I largely—possibly completely—share your views.

The long study that my associates and I have given to this subject leads to the general conclusion that it is possibly wise to agree to—even propose—an amendment which would state:

(a) That any provisions of a treaty or international agreement adjudged by the courts to be in conflict with our nation’s Constitution would be invalid. (This of course is, in fact, already the case. This part of the amendment would be nothing but a reassurance to those people who fear that our nation’s Constitution could now be wrecked and destroyed by the treaty-making power.)

(b) That provisions of a treaty would not have internal effect except by act of Congress. (In the practical sense this is now the case, because there are few treaties that carry with them self-enforcing provisions within any country. I am informed also that in all other countries an act of Parliament or Congress is necessary to put into effect those provisions of a treaty that affect the internal affairs of a country. Again, then, we would be agreeing to an amendment which is a reaffirmative of a practical fact.)

(c) That the votes in the Senate on any subject should be recorded “yeas” and “nays.” (What would be the practical effect of this I do not know, but it has been urged by others and I see no objection to it.)

I hope you will be among those who will raise their voices publicly to support the position you state so succinctly.

Throughout the country those people who have heard of this matter (a minority) have absorbed the idea that Mr. Roosevelt exceeded his powers during World War II and in so doing, put this country’s Constitution in jeopardy. They have the conviction, also, that the Charter of the United Nations gives to international bodies rights to intervene in the internal affairs of the United States. Consequently the words “Bricker Amendment” appeal to many of them as a sheer necessity, in order to protect their constitutional rights and freedoms.

So while I fully share your belief that no amendment is truly necessary, I do believe that there have grown up certain fears which might be best eliminated by an amendment which would be nothing more than a reaffirmation of the supremacy of our Constitution and the right of the Congress, under the Constitution, to annul by subsequent act of its own any provision of any treaty.

Do you see anything wrong with the position I have stated?³

With warm personal regard,

As ever,

D.E.

1. The letter was addressed to McCloy at the Chase National Bank, 18 Pine Street, New York, New York.
2. The reference is to McCloy’s telegram of Jan. 8 to President Eisenhower, in which he voiced his strong opposition to the Bricker Amendment and the various compromise proposals. (Eisenhower Library, Dulles papers, “Bricker Amendment”)
3. A copy of McCloy’s eight-page reply to the President of Jan. 18, in which he strongly reiterated his opposition “to any amendment whatever, for practical and political reasons,” is in the Eisenhower Library, Dulles papers, “Bricker Amendment”. This copy, along with President Eisenhower’s letter of Jan. 13 and McCloy’s telegram of Jan. 8, were sent to Secretary Dulles as attachments to McCloy’s brief covering letter of Jan. 19. Subsequently attached was a copy of Dulles’ reply to McCloy of Jan. 20, in which he noted briefly that McCloy had “usefully presented persuasive arguments.”