Talk:Bricker Amendment/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The historical background says it got its start after the Second World War, yet the cases mentioned precede the Second World War. Did the formation of the UN after the Second World War merely strengthen a movement that had started earlier, or is that part about the UN and the Second World War inaccurate? - Nik42 03:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bricker was part of the old guard of isolationists who dominated foreign policy before WWII (e.g. Burton Wheeler, Hiram Johnson, Arthur Vandenburg). So after the war, the UN and the declaration of rights only renewed the distrust he and others had of treaties and international bodies. Some note of this ought to be made in the globalization articles as well, because some of those arguments are not at all new. PedanticallySpeaking 16:00, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

References

Making a list of some I found that we could use. Kaisershatner 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[1]

has a portrait but uncertain copyright status

POV essay but well-referenced. Should check the congressional record citations

Kaisershatner 16:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've been working on this awhile, but as it reads now the sections under National Debate don't really explain enough who supported Bricker in the Senate - there's sections for Eisenhower, Republicans against, Democrats (against), but not enough detail on Bricker's side. I'll try to get it in there but anyone is welcome to help...Kaisershatner 16:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote the Constitution

The quote in the second paragraph is: "All Treaties...shall be the supreme Law of the Land...any Thing in the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding,"

This is incomplete and hence potentially misleading. The incompleteness is in the part of the quote stating "Constitution", whereas it must read "Constitution or Laws of any State".

The way it is now, it appears as though the article is making the clause refer to the Constitution of the United States (i.e., "This Constitution"), rather than (correctly) the Constitution of a State.

I've read the (applicable parts of) Supreme Court decisions referenced, and it does not appear that the controversy was related to confusion over the issue of which Constitution is being mentioned at this point in the clause.

At a minimum, the quote should be changed to add ellipsis dots following Constitution as: "All Treaties...shall be the supreme Law of the Land...any Thing in the Constitution...to the contrary notwithstanding,"

This change at least alerts the reader to look further into the quoted part of the supremacy clause. But it is likely preferable to recast the quote and clarify immediately the actual source of the presumed supremacy of treaties (difference in treatment of Laws and Treaties). 66.235.31.160 00:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)