Dear
Ed: I admit that everybody is worried about everything--but I do hope that you will not worry too much about the things said by John T. Flynn.1 There are a great many people, like him, who have not the slightest conception of what they themselves mean by "repudiation." Do they mean they are going to war if someone does not accept their decisions?
With respect to your other question concerning agreements made by the President of the United States, I think it is necessary to apply the rule of reason.2 Obviously anything in the nature of a treaty has no force until it is approved by two-thirds of the Senate.
On the other hand, the President has to make frequent arrangements with other governments that could not possibly be classed as treaties and could never be handled if the treaty-making process had to be used. Take, for example, the Executive arrangements for hiring labor at an aircraft base we are building in North Africa; the setting up of a command post with American participation in France; arrangements having to do with the exchange of information, some of it vital in character. These simple illustrations could be multiplied a hundred-fold.
It is this kind of thing that most people know nothing about, but unless this authority resided with the President, much of our business would come to a standstill.
I am quite ready to admit the right and duty of the Congress to watch the Executive Departments and to make such investigations as they may choose in order that their law-making function may be properly performed. But I do think that the wisdom of our founding fathers in establishing the balance between the Executive and Legislative Departments has been proven time and time again. I do not see any point in amending the Constitution to prove that it should not be changed. I quite agree that in this particular, at least, it should not be changed, and that is the reason I want no amendment.
Love to Lucy and to Janis, and of course all the best to you. As ever
