Congress may pass tliat overturn the activity currently bannedrnin your state. It was exactly this end-around the democraticrnprocess that child labor law activists and civil rights workers reliedrnon to fight against state laws they opposed eariier this century,rnand it is U.N. treaties and the acronymic “trade” pacts onrnwhich open-border activists rely today for the supposed “right”rnof Haitians to invade our shores; to which the ACLU appeals inrnits attempts to abolish capital punishment at the state level; andrnto which environmentalists turn to hinder Americans’ right torncontrol their own conservation laws.rnWhat Holman found especially dangerous was the U.N.’srnDeclaration of Human Rights, which he called a “strange document”rnthat could eventually dictate what does and does notrnconstitute “adequate employment, adequate wages, adequaternhousing and clothing, and adequate rest and leisure,” if not alsornauthorize “some agency . . . like the Worid Court to nullifyrnour immigration laws.” He also fought against the signing ofrnthe U.N. Genocide Treaty—especially its vague ban on “seriousrnmental harm,” which as we know today could be anvthing fromrnan argument with your wife to the rolling of your eves at a rudernblack man at a Denny’s restaurant—and he fought against therntreaty not because he was secretly a Max Tarn in favor of genocide,rnbut because it would give the federal government at thernprodding of social activists the means to trample state laws andrnthe democratic process as established b- the Constitution. Sorndoggedly did Holman fight Eleanor Roosevelt’s push in thern1950’s for legally binding U.N. resolutions that President Eisenhowerrnderided his crusade as one “to save the United Statesrnfrom Eleanor Roosevelt.”rnIt was Frank Holman’s activism of the late 1940’s that wasrnthe driving force behind Ohio Senator John Bricker’s attemptsrnin the 1950’s to pass a constitutional amendment that wouldrnprohibit this method of superseding American law. Andrnthough there were many versions of the so-called BriekerrnAmendment throughout the 50’s, all of them generally soughtrnthree things: to confine treaties to foreign affairs issues, to ensurernthat international agreements made by Presidents were notrnself-executing in terms of domestic law (meaning the judiciaryrncould not overturn state law on the basis of an internationalrnagreement alone, without the passage of subsequent legislation),rnand to protect the constitutional rights and liberties ofrnAmericans by ensuring that treaties and executive agreementsrncould not supersede or abrogate provisions of the Constitutionrnthat reserved rights to the states.rnAs we all know, Eisenhower and fellow Republicans succeededrnin killing the amendment with ad hominem attacks onrnits proponents and by distorting the issue to a debate whetherrnthe public should be allowed to interfere with the governing ofrnthe country’s foreign policy, something the Brieker Amendmentrnand its supporters never advocated. All of the versions ofrnthe Brieker Amendment made it perfectly clear that the statesrnwould only become involved in foreign policy that dealt withrnmatters historically and constitutionally under their jurisdictionrnand never in such areas as national defense, military alliances,rnand control of nuclear weapons, all of which would remain underrnthe exclusive authority of the federal government.rnIn a 1956 article, James Burnham addressed two importantrnquestions that were often posed at the height of the debate overrnthe Brieker Amendment. The first one concerned what ourrnFounding Fathers had to say on this matter. “The understood,”rnwrote Burnham, that “treaties must be given the forcernof domestic law. . .. But they never considered the entireh differentrnquestion of gi’ing the force of domestic law to unspecifiedrnactions that would be taken by continuing internationalrnbodies [such as the mandatory dispute settlement panelsrnwhose decisions America agreed to accept as part of thernWTO]. The latter is equivalent to the surrender . . . of nationalrnsovereignty in favor of wodd government. Our Constitutionrnas it now reads does not make the releant distinction.”rnThe second question Burnham addressed was whether all ofrnthis was much ado about nothing. “Up until a generation ago,”rnhe wrote, “the danger of constitutional subversion via the treatyrnpower. . . could be considered academic. But it is either naivernor disingenuous to continue to brush it off.” If Burnhamrnthought in light of the formation of the United Nations, thernproposed Genocide Treaty, and the U.N.-sponsored “police action”rnin Korea that the usurpation of national sovereignty was arnreal enough possibility to warrant an amendment to the Constitutionrnin the mid-1950’s, one can only imagine what Burnhamrnwould have to say todav about the future of a people thatrnopens its arms to NAFTA,’ GATT, and the WTO and thatrncourts such tyrannies as a U.N. standing army and internationalrnagreements that would strip them of their control over abortion,rnimmigration, wages, child care, adoption, education,rnparental rights, firearms, and capital punishment.rnBut if there are still some among us who belie’e all of this isrnindeed much ado about nothing—that this is not the timernto demand the passage of a new Brieker Amendment—thenrnplease remember what President Clinton surreptitiously proposedrnin Presidential Decision Directive 2 5 early last year. Followingrnon the heels of P.D.D. 13 in late 1993, this directive outlinedrnthe placing of American soldiers under the exclusiverncommand and control of the United Nations; the sharing ofrnclassified information with other countries of the United Nationsrn(the vast majority of whose members queue up annuallyrnfor American largess and then spend the rest of the year denouncingrnus as evil incarnate); the repealing of the law that limitsrnthe number of troops the United States can commit to UnitedrnNations command without congressional approval; and thernestablishing of a special financial account for U.N. missionsrnthat would not need congressional approval. When CongressmanrnDick Zimmcr of New Jersey requested a copy of the executivernorder, a Clinton aide replied, “We’re not going to releasernit. We don’t want to be hassled by adverse public reaction.”rnA President of the United States tries to surrender our country’srnsovereignty and to relinquish his authority as Commanderin-rnChief, and he does not regard this as an issue for publicrndebate.rnSeven days later, servicemen at the Twentynine Palms Marinernbase in California were given a “Combat Arms Survev”rnthat originated as a result of P.D.D. 13 and 25. When news ofrnthe survey’s contents leaked out to the public, the MarinernCorps played down its significance by explaining that it was onlyrnan academic exercise conducted by a researcher at the NavalrnPostgraduate School in Monterey. The survey’s author, however,rnadmitted that he wrote the questions as a direct result ofrnClinton’s directives and that the administering of the surveyrnwas approved by the military and super ised by civilian faculty,rnincluding a former Assistant Secretary of Defense. Cleady,rnfrom the perspective of officials in government, the military,rnand academia, none of the ideas in the surxey was too offcnsiernor treasonous not to air.rnPart One of the survey answered the question of what thernOCTOBER 1995/23rnrnrn