Hotly Debated Bricker Amendment Now Doomed for Political Death
Page 2 University Daily Kansan
The controversial Bricker amendment, which Republican Sen. John W. Bricker of Ohio introduced in the 83rd Congress a year ago, now seems doomed to ineffectiveness. At issue in the debate is the Constitutional question of the treaty-making power, but the fight has fundamentally been a political one between the Eisenhower and old guard wings of the Republican party.
The damage had been done. Many original sponsors of the proposed amendment promptly changed their minds and withdrew their support since they did not wish to emphasize the split in the Republican party. They also were reluctant to come to grips with the President this early in the game.
Sen. Bricker did not falter in his reply: "The amendment was approved by extremely able law-years. The President is not a lawyer. His statement is utterly without foundation. There is nothing whatever in the amendment that concerns treaties insofar as the foreign affairs of this country are concerned. The President made a purely emotional argument."
The battle lines became clearer with the opening of the current session of Congress. President Eisenhower made this official statement: "I am unalterably opposed to the Bricker amendment. It would so restrict the conduct of foreign affairs that our country could not negotiate the agreements necessary for the handling of our business with the rest of the world. It would be notice to friends as well as our enemies abroad that our country intends to withdraw from its leadership in world affairs."
The amendment was designed primarily to limit the treaty-making powers of the executive branch of our government. It was originally sponsored by 45 Republican senators and 19 Democrats. The reasons for its support were distress over Yalta, the China policy, the Korean situation, and other controversial foreign policy moves. Supporters include isolationists, opponents of the United Nations, and states' righters. Most of the sponsors lined up behind the proposal while—and because—the Truman administration was in office.
The Bricker amendment, in essence, would (1) make inoperative as internal law all treaties which deal with matters reserved to the states by the Constitution unless such treaties had the approval of the state legislatures; (2) give Congress the power to "regulate" all executive agreements with foreign nations.
The Eisenhower faction, including most eastern Republicans, strengthened its position in a letter which the President sent to Senate majority leader William F. Knowland. It said, "We cannot
hope to achieve and maintain peace if we shackle the federal government so that it is no longer sovereign in foreign affairs."
The Bricker faction retorted in the Senator's statement that its differences with the administration reflected "fundamentally different philosophies of government," and that "there are only two sides in this debate."
Last week Arthur H. Dean, U.S. special envoy, said, "The easiest and surest way of avoiding subsequent judicial misinterpretation of an amendment is to refrain from making any amendment at all." It now seems almost certain that either no amendment proposal will pass the Senate, or that any plan which might obtain the necessary two-thirds approval will be so watered-down as to have no real effect. —Court Ernst
All this time most of the Democrats have been sitting back and enjoying the fun. They are perfectly happy to let the spotlight focus on the Republican split.
However, Sen. Knowland represented many senators who were trying desperately to create a third side to the issue. They sought a compromise bill which would satisfy both factions in the GOP. This group offered a proposal through Democratic Sen. Walter F. George of Georgia, which stated that no treaty or international agreement could contravene the Constitution. The administration felt a reaffirmation of this position was entirely superfluous, but might reconcile voters who feared abuses of the treaty-making power.
The situation became even more muddled as the President shuffled and reshuffled his stand on various substitute proposals. No one seemed to be sure what he would accept, but the balance of bargaining power was on his side as he was backed up by millions of voters.
Sen. Bricker at first flatly refused the compromise proposal, but, realizing that hopes of a two-thirds majority for his amendment were lost, said he was willing to listen. The faction shortly afterward surrendered the "which clause," which would have made invalid any treaty dealing with matters reserved to the states by the Constitution, unless the states concurred.
Last week new amendment compromises and proposals showered down in Congress. Most Republicans fully realized three things: that passing any kind of a treaty-control amendment was beginning to seem unlikely, that it appeared to be impossible to get two-thirds of the Senate to agree on any single proposal, and that the whole issue at hand must be disposed of as quickly as possible before the breach in the party became stronger.
Union Cigaret Machines Ready for Major Repairs
Must the Student Union take it upon itself to keep those awful "cancer causing" cigarettes from students and any others who might be foolish enough to squander their quarters in its cigaret machines?
In the past three weeks we have heard (and voiced) numerous complaints from various and sundry persons who have plunged their money in those Union "weed" dispensers but got nothing in return—not even a refund.
This might not be so bad, but trying to hunt down the concession manager to retrieve the money lost is about as difficult as making al "As" without attending class.
Again it might not be so bad if the faulty machines at least were tagged "out of order" or "broken" or something to that effect. Apparently those in charge feel it is more enjoyable to dish out rebates and settle later with the wholesalers than to go to the little trouble of marking the machines.
Machines, like human beings, break down from time to time, but as a service to the many students and occasional outsiders who frequent the spacious student center, the machines, which undoubtedly get a lot of use and abuse, could be kept in a bit better working order than has been evident in the past.
Member of the Kansas Press Assn., National Editor Assn., Inland Daily Press Association, and National Advertising Represented by the National Advertising Service, 420 Madison Avenue, N.Y. City, Subscription rates: $3 a semester or $45 a quarter (income). Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturday and Sunday during second class master periods. Entered second class master Sept. 17, 1910, itLawrence, Kan. Post Office under act
gains trotting up two flights of stairs seeking a refund because of a broken machine, and then having to be satisfied without the product even if fortune enough to come out even financially.
It is bad enough that a package of cigarettes costs anywhere from one to 5 cents more there than elsewhere in town, but at least we like to get what we pay for.
Businessmen will tell you it is bad business practice to make the consumer go out of his way to get the desired product. Certainly good will toward the Union is not growing because of the exercise one
—Stan Hamilton.
University of Kansas Student Newspaper News Room KU 251 Ad Room KU 378
Daily Hansan
of March 3.1879
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS
sleep!
Wanted by All Jayhawkers: Hours and Hours of Sleep
Sleep—blessed, blessed sleep! My kingdom for another hour of
Probably the most effective torture device since the "rack" went out is the undisciplined alarm clock that won't give in to the weary whims of the college student.
Sleep becomes the substance of life for the student. Each hour of the day is calculated in relationship to "how can I get all this done and still get eight hours of sleep?" The answer is simple—it ain't possible.
Classroom subjects mean nothing to the 4-hour-a-night student except when they can be related to sleep. The botany student dreams of sleeping beneath the branches of a dictyledon. The chemist sees misty puffs of chemical dreams and solutions of no-doze. The horizontal is the mathematician's way of knowing he is sleeping.
Classes become a hazy film of someone talking about something—maybe. The fight to stay awake is the greatest challenge any class can offer.
If the sleepy student is lucky enough to get to his 8 a.m. class—or find it, he probably won't recognize his instructor anyway. Instructors are people rarely seen, just things focused through half-shut huts and myriads of bloodshot corneas.
Ben Franklin obviously wasn't a 20th century college student. This old stuff and nonsense about "early to bed and early to rise" fell through when eight hours of sleep was deemed impossible. The new interpretation of the old adage should be
Early to bed and early to rise, makes a student healthy, wealthy (?) and on probation.
And as for solutions, a "how-to-stay-awake" class might prove beneficial—but much too frustrating. A "how-to-sleep-unnoticed" class would be far more practical.
Gene Shank
Short Ones
Now that the ASC has been slapped with a veto in the Rock Chalk Revue case, wonder what effect that will have on the KU-Oklahoma game next fall? It was reported by reliable sources that the organization planned to take over control of the grid classic since an event of this nature required superior management.
Some of the freshman thought the structure being built down by the intramural fields was to be the new home for the philosophy department.
Something new has been added to AFROTC drill. Now they've got special flights comprised of nothing but second loofes. Their battle cry: "Every man an officer."
The Big Four Foreign Ministers' confab was loaded with hot air, long statements that said nothing, friction, distrust, etc. Sounded just like active meeting.
Letters
Dear. Sir.
Editor, UDK.
In a recent front page article of the UDK, Mr. Jack Lindberg has written:
"Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop . . ." the mariner said many years ago, but when he spoke these words he didn't know what the situation was going to be in Kansas in later years. Not only is there a lack of water everywhere, but it looks as though in the near future there won't be any to drink either."
From what he writes in his interesting article, I am able to see that this sailor had plenty of water, but not enough to drink either. I hope I have interpreted the illusion correctly.
What I would like to know is just how many years ago this mariner was in that fix and said those words.
Was it before they were able to distill water? I would also like to know, if possible, whether the man in question was famous enough for it to be able to be known if he is still alive or is now dead either.
Yours for better journalism.
George Herman.
instructor in English