• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

WI: The Bricker Amendment passed the Senate?

AndrewH

Well-known member
In 1951, Senator John Bricker, avid anti-communist, isolationist and once Vice-Presidential candidate, submitted to Congress the Bricker Amendment, an Amendment to the Constitution that would dramatically limit the powers of the President to negotiate foreign treaties (you can find the text here). Conservative Democrats and Republicans were deeply opposed to the growing internationalism of the post-war world, and after Bob Taft was defeated by Dwight Eisenhower, America seemed done with the isolationist politics of the past.

However, the Amendment came absurdly close to passing the Senate, having the support of every Senate Republican and eighteen Democrats - only the combined opposition of President Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson was the Amendment defeated. It was a death knell for the isolationists, as they were slowly replaced by radical anti-communists over the years. The Amendment was submitted many more times, but never got as close as it did in the early 50's.

So, what if it did pass the Senate? Let's say that Johnson is more hesitant to work with Eisenhower, and the President is unable to muster enough opposition to defeat it (a big ask, knowing that Johnson himself worked tirelessly to make sure it failed). While could have easily failed in the House, where a Democratic majority could've killed it before it went to the states for ratification, it would've reinforced the power and influence of the isolationists in Congress and could've possibly led to them remaining a significant faction in American politics despite the rise in anti-communism.

If the Bricker Amendment somehow was ratified, it would be interesting on how that would impact the Eisenhower Administration in the short-term, and how it would change American foreign policy in the long-term. The Warren Court would most likely do everything in its power to make the Amendment toothless, and it was viewed as an Amendment that would be a consistent annoyance and obstacle to every future President.

What do you guys think about this?
 
In theory ANZUS and SEATO treaties could be in danger,not to mention the Treaty on Open Skies,IAEA and numerous defense treaties,giving the Soviets an upper hand and forcing America’s allies to try to defend on their own in the short term.In the long term,stuff like SALT,Israel-Arab peace accords or NAFTA might not happen.

In practice however,I don’t see it being probable.Like you said,the Democrats would kill it in the House and The Court would make it toothless if it somehow passed.The isolationists could get a boost and remain relevant,but not for long,given the Cold War being more of an issue to the public at this point.They were at their death beds after Taft lost to Ike.Maybe if Taft won the nomination,became President and didn’t die in office they would survive.Outside of that tho it doesn’t seem likely.
 
If the Warren Court really wanted to, it could try embracing the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine and strike down this amendment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconstitutional_constitutional_amendment

Basically, if one argues that the word "amendment" means "minor change", then one can argue that any change that is sufficiently major isn't actually an amendment at all and thus not actually allowed by the US constitutional amendment procedure. Of course, such an argument would undoubtedly get an extremely massive amount of criticism, but some courts--such as the Indian Supreme Court--actually did embrace this concept and doctrine. The idea of an unconstitutional constitutional amendment already existed since the 1800s (as you call tell by looking at that article); so, if the Warren Court will actually get access to this idea, then it could perhaps embrace it considering just how they were obsessed with making rulings that delivered good results--even if they had to deviate from original intent and/or original meaning to actually make these rulings of theirs.
 
Back
Top