Изображения страниц


(List of witnesses appears alphabetically in contents)

Administration statements at NATO, SEATO, and Tonkin Gulf resolu- Page tions hearings-

172, 173 Advisory function of Senate, use of...

152 Aiken. Senator George D.:

Examination of witnesses: Katzenbach, Hon. Nicholas deB... 94-95 Air attacks on North Vietnam, authority and need for.

141 Amending the Constitution..

258, 288, 289 American involvement in Vietnam in absence of Tonkin Bay resolution..

128, 141, 143 Armed Forces: Congressional powers over.

170 Congressional resolution on President's use of

12 Danger of having overseas.

212 Exercise of control of the..

306 President's authority to use.

33, 98 Stationing of U.S. troops in Vietnam.

307 Use of, in the 20th century

11 Armed ships bill, President Wilson and the

14 Authority to send troops to Vietnam.-

218, 297 "Authorizing” and “authority,” meaning of..

129 Bombing policy of United States.

186 Broad delegations of power to the President in resolutions.

40 Carlson, Senator Frank: Examination of witnesses: Bartlett, Prof. Ruhl J.

32-34, 39 Katzenbach, Hon. Nicholas deB.

99-104 Case, Senator Clifford P.: Examination of witnesses:

Katzenbach, Hon. Nicholas deB.. 131-132, 157-163, 168, 183, 187
Lévitt, Judge Albert..

301-302 Changing world, our changing role in a---

73 Clarifying use of the phrase "to declare war”

80 Clark, Senator Joseph S.: Examination of witnesses: Findley, Hon. Paul G...

234-236 Holt, Prof. S. Stull...

246-247 Katzenbach, Hon. Nicholas deB.

105-106 Commitments: Advisability of itemizing-

117 Annual itemization of, proposed..

112 Ascertaining the true nature of..

113 Better procedures needed to arrive at.

116 Boundaries of defense treaty.

157 Constitutional quality of.

75 Nature of security arrangements.

97 Partial texts: Africa

57, 68 East Asia

59, 70 Europe.

55, 63 Near East-Middle East.

56, 65 South Asia...

57, 68 Southeast Asia-Southwest Pacific..

57, 68, 71 Western Hemisphere...

52, 60 Continuing:

“And when judicial authority is invoked in aid of such consummation, state constitutions, state laws, and state policies are irrelevant to the inquiry and de cision. It is inconceivable that any of them can be interposed as an obstacle to the effective operation of a federal constitutional power. Ct. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416; Askura v. Seattle, 265 U.S. 332."

The argument would be appropriate as to a treaty approved by the Senate, but the so-called "treaty" then under consideration was not such a one; it was made by the President alone, contrary to the Constitution. Clearly the Court accorded the "treaty” in question the same degree of validity as that possessed by a regular treaty, even to the extent of overriding state constitutions and state laws. To complete the incongruity, the Court looked for support to the two cases cited, which involved treaties constitutionally made.

After World War II, Status-of-Forces treaties were made with Western Euro. pean nations, whereby United States soldiers charged with crime against nationals of the nation concerned would be tried in that nation's courts, which treaties were submitted and approved by the Senate. Afterward the President alone made a similar arrangement with Japan, which on coming before the Supreme Court was held to be a valid treaty.

Thus it is seen that the Supreme Court gives a presidential "commitment." if it may be called such, exactly the same standing as a treaty made in accordance with the Constitution. It must follow, according to the Supreme Court, that a President may choose which method to pursue. He may perfunctorily refer a proposed treaty to the Senate, or if there should be doubt about Senate approval, or for any other reason, he may complete the transaction by himself. The Supreme Court would make a nullity of the treaty-making provision of the Constitution.

The Court cannot be said to have been "interpreting" the treaty provision, because that provision is a direction stated in such precise terms that interpretation is neither called for nor permitted. The Court has in fact been acting in defiance and violation of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is not infallible. It concedes this when on occasion it overrules its own previous decisions. Nor is the Constitution “what the judges say it is;" it is what it itself says it is. A Supreme Court decision is not the "supreme law of the land." The Constitution states it thus:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursurance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land;

Treaties, to be valid, must be made “under the authority of the United States,"—in conformity with the Constitution—not "under the authority of the President," as stated by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is subordinatenot superior-to the Constitution. Its members recognize this when they swear fealty upon taking office; but it is apparent that in relation to treaties, at least, they have presumed to place themselves above the Constitution when they arbitrarily accord to the President alone the power to make treaties. The Court is without authority to amend, remake or ignore any part of the Constitution.


All is not well with our Republic. The Executors of the Constitution have wandered far afield in conducting the affairs of government in at least two very vital aspects and must be headed off if constitutional government is to prevail. A President ambitious for power will not limit himself. The Supreme Court offers no hope. The task, then, devolves upon Congress, even though its tendencies toward weakness do not inspire great confidence.

It would be incumbent upon Congress to divest itself of the idea that a President is allwise and not subject to mistake; its members must be brought to realize that their allegiance is to the Constitution representing the people--not to the President. They must face up to the responsibility conferred upon them by the Constitution.

The impeachment provision is available. Either one or both Houses could correct the situation by refusing to implement in the slighest degree unauthorized military action and spurious treaties. If this or other measures having the same effect are not taken, the Constitution will be a shambles and we shall indeed have an elective monarchy with the President wielding unlimited power.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


Foreign policy:

Page Conduct of, different from formulation..

79 Congressional initiative in.-

155 Congress, participation in making

210 Dissatisfaction with conduct of.

78 Distinction between formulating and directing or controlling

183 Extent of Presidential powers in--

182 Presidential versus congressional power over.

215 Relationship of military maneuvering to-

168 Responsibility for...

210 Restoring the role of Congress in.

247 Senate's influence through public debate-

241 Formulating and directing or controlling foreign policy, distinction between

183 Fulbright, Senator J. W.: Examination of witnesses: Bartlett, Prof. Ruhl J.

21-26, 37, 39, 41-48 Ervin, Senator Sam J., Jr.

196-199, 205–207, 221-223 Findley, Hon. Paul G...

231-232 Holt, Prof. Stull..

239,241, 243–260 Katzenbach, Hon. Nicholas deB. 77-88, 136-141, 143-145, 173–184 Levitt, Judge Albert

284, 288, 297–299, 300-301 Nontross, George H.

316 Percy, Senator Charles H..

114 Future resolutions, wording of ---

21 Glassboro summit conference, observation on the...

34 Gore, Senator Albert: Examination of witnesses: Ervin, Senator Sam J., Jr.


207–209 Findley, Hon. Paui G'.

232–234 Hoit, Prof. S. Stull..

239,240, 241-242 Percy, Senator Charles H..

114-116 Katzenbach, Hon. Nicholas deB.-- 88-94, 109–110, 145–146, 186-187 Government by executive supremacy, trend toward.. Gradual erosion of congressional participation---

41 Hickenlooper, Senator Bourke B.: Examination of witnesses: Bartlett, Prof. Ruhl J..

26-30 Ervin, Senator Sam J., Jr.

218-221 Katzenbach, Hon. Nicholas deB.

169–172 Levitt, Judge Albert.

286–288, 294 Percy, Senator Charles H..

116–119 Impeachment provision in Constitution, applicability of

315 Intervention in Dominican Republic, Congo, and Cuba, nature of action - 178 Joint resolutions, use of, after Presidential action..

299 Keeper of the peace, United States as.

176 Kennedy round re trade negotiations.

104 Korean action compared to Vietnam.

180 Korean crisis, President Truman's decision during

16 Laos, bombing of targets in..

91 Lausche, Senator Frank J.: Examination of witnesses: Katzenbach, Hon. Nicholas deB.

95-99 Levitt, Judge Albert

291-296 Percy, Senator Charles HI..

120 Legislative and executive: Change in positions of

19 Conflict over shared powers to make treaties.

237 Constitutional powers of..

76 Coordinate action by the

74 Coordination and persuasion.

232 Delineation of powers.

163 Formal and informal consultation between..

75 Participation in commitments...

220 Presidential versus congressional power over foreign policy.

215 Purpose of hearing to promote better understanding between.

87 Reversal of constitutional roles of

21 Reestablishing the relationship between.

43 Use of the power of persuasion..

233 War powers under the Constitution...

194, 196


!! I i I

thorized any actions, any military actions in South Vietnam. It merely said it is prepared to act, and the Southeast Asia Treaty I do not believe warrants, is any commitment which warrants, the President to take action, and I believe that those are violations of the law and I think that an official is subject to impeachment when he violates the law.

Senator MORSE. That is the major exception I take to your statement. Mr. MONTROSS. That is all right, Senator Morse.

Senator MORSE. I think impeachment as defined and set out in the Constitution involves a very limited set of facts concerning Presidential conduct. It has to border on treason and I do not think that there is the slightest basis for impeaching a President on the basis of any treasonable act.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I take it, if I were to pursue that for a moment, the position of Mr. Montross is that ignoring or violating the Constitution is tantamount to treason; is that correct?

Mr. MONTROSS. Pardon, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel that the ignoring or violating, or refusing to follow the Constitution is tantamount to treason?

Mr. MONTROSS. Well, the impeachment provision provides for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that doesn't amount to treason.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, is it

Mr. MONTROSS. It is even for misdemeanors he is subject to impeachment.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you heard the bell. Unfortunately we must go for another vote on the Williams amendment. This is a very interesting statement. I wish we could have time to go further into it, not only this provision but into other provisions.

[blocks in formation]

May I ask by way of summary if you do favor the adoption of resolution 151?

Mr. MONTROSS. I favor the adoption of it; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any amendments to suggest to it? Do you think it is adequate in its present form?

Mr. MONTROSS. I have not seen the actual resolution. I just know the general trend of it, and that trend I approve of heartily.

The CHAIRMAN. You saw an account of it in the newspaper, didn't you? It is a very simple resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. But you are in favor of that?

I appreciate very much, Mr. Montross, your coming here. You may be excused now.

Our next witness was Mrs. Cecil Norton Broy of Alexandria. Mrs. Broy, you understand the situation, the bell has just rung, much to my dismay, but it is so late in the day, I am afraid we will not be able to come back. I wonder if you could submit your statement for the record. I know it is a very fine statement and a very short one and we would include it in the record.


Mrs. Broy. Mr. Chairman, yes; and I may just say on behalf of the mothers and grandmothers of this country, we are grateful to you, and I may speak in that capacity as a woman who has been connected widely with many women's organizations in the country and appeared before this committee over the last 25 years. We are for the resolution. We think it is time for us to review our stand. I don't blame President Johnson altogether. This thing has been building up for some years.

Thank you for your resolution. I stand heartily in favor of it.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate very much your submitting the statement. It is a very short and a very concise, and I think, a very telling statement, and we are very pleased to have it.

Thank you very much.
(The prepared statement of Mrs. Broy follows:)

By the way of identification I am a resident and voter in Fairfax County,
Virginia. I am a student of foreign affairs and lived for fourteen years in foreign
countries as wife of United States Consul Charles Broy, a native of Rappa hanock
County, Virginia. While living with him in such important posts as London, Eng-
land and Brussels, Belgium, I traveled widely in 14 European countries. Since
Mr. Broy's death, I have continued my travels and studies, particularly of the
Middle East.

In so far as my interest in good government is concerned, I learned much from my statesman first husband, the late Honorable Thomas Upton Sisson of Mississippi, a close personal friend of the late Speaker of the House of Representatives, Honorable Sam Rayburn. He was for some years the ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives.

At the present time I am engaged in writing a series of magazine articles addressed to American women regarding the present crisis in the Middle East. In 1965 I made a trip to the Middle East, visiting seven countries.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the purpose of S. Res. 151 is to make clear that the United States Senate believes that no commitment should be made by the United States to any foreign power without participation in such commitments by the representatives of the people of the United States who have been elected to the Senate.

I feel very strongly that our country is facing great danger in the present situation in which commitments to foreign policy are being made in the name of the United States without the participation of our legislators. I had made up my mind not to enter into any discussions with anybody at this time regarding Vietnam, but one morning, not too long ago, I heard over the television a U.S. General state that in 15 more years we could finish the War in Vietnam. I was startled—"15 more years," I said to myself, “Then the prophesies of Lenin and Stalin will surely come to pass if we keep on fighting for 15 more years." You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that Lenin and Stalin said: “Leave the United States alone and she will bankrupt herself.” Mr. Chairman, our Republic cannot survive as a free and independent nation if we continue to spend our blood and money in wars nearly half-way around the globe especially when months and months passed by when our precious sons were told that they must not attack any enemy planes under certain conditions nor must not damage the enemy airfields until they were fully completed. The war is costing, I'm told, 312 billion dollars a month, so it is easy for many of us women to wonder if not some blood and money aren't being wasted.

God's laws cannot be changed. Man's laws can be changed. Therefore, whatever interpretation some people have made of the "Geneva Agreement” or any other agreements that got us into this terrible situation, let us now, at the earliest possible moment, go back to Geneva and have the courage to take steps leading to our early withdrawal from Vietnam, since we have seen them through a democratic election, and leave them “to work out their own salvation."

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »