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?
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?