Dear
Ed: At least I took one part of your advice. This morning I had Styles Bridges to breakfast and we had a very nice visit.1
It seems to me that it is useless to pursue further the subject of the Bricker Amendment. For my own point of view, I cannot agree that merely because one President desperately tried to arrogate to himself greater power than contemplated in the Constitution, that the Constitution should be changed so as to limit the legitimate powers of the President.2
The treaty-making power is an important and heavy responsibility. It was one of the real reasons for the establishment of our Constitution, and it received earnest study on the part of those who framed the document. In recognition of its very great influence upon our lives, the Congress decided that a two-thirds majority would be necessary for ratification.3
One thing you should understand is that most of the "Executive Agreements" deal with the setting up of international groups or bodies that explore and study questions. For example, I have a number of representatives right now studying, with representatives from other nations, what would be a good course of action in particular instances. But in none of these cases does anything become of any moment to us unless it contemplates action to be taken under the provisions of a previously approved treaty, or later becomes included in the provisions of a treaty which is then submitted to the Senate for approval.4
There is nothing that has taken place in any of the so-called war conferences and meetings that has binding effect upon the United States or upon any one of our citizens. If a President presumed, on his own authority, to commit our country to such an obligation, then he would, in my opinion, be acting unconstitutionally.5 As ever
