Abstract:
THE MOVEMENT FOR THE BRICKER AMENDMENT: ITS ORIGINS, GROWTH, AND FAILURE
The purpose of the movement for the Bricker amendment was to amend the Constitution relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements. This paper interprets the movement as part of a conservative reaction to the growth of internationalism and presidential power during and after World War II. Although this paper is concerned primarily with the politics of the movement, the legal aspects are described to the extent necessary to make the politics involved comprehensible.
The movement originated as a response to the fear that rights guaranteed in the Constitution could be forfeited by the government through the use of treaties and/or executive agreements. The Supreme Court allowed Congress to legislate in a formerly unconstitutional area in order to implement a treaty in the case of Missouri vs. Holland (1920). In the early 1950s, there were several UN proposals before the Senate
concerning human rights. If they were adopted as treaties, it appeared that Congress could legislate on these rights in any way desired. Implementing legislation might be acceptable to the Supreme Court, constitutional limitations notwithstanding.
The importance of the American Bar Association (ABA) as a leading force in developing the movement into one of national significance is emphasized. The ABA's support of the movement added credence to the idea that the Constitution needed to be amended to safeguard the rights of American citizens.
Despite the fact that Republican Senator John W. Bricker of Ohio introduced one of his proposals with more than two-thirds of the Senate as co-sponsors, it met with defeat in 1954. The failure of the movement is largely attributable to the final decision of the Eisenhower administration to oppose all of the proposals offered on the basis that they would unnecessarily restrict the President and the State Department in conducting foreign affairs.
