« 이전계속 »
United States Supreme Court. Their proposals of forced integration violates the most fundamental principles of our Constitution and all of the principles advocated by our Founding Fathers for it abolishes freedom of choice in America the very thing this country was created for.
A proposed civil rights bill patterned after a United Nations proposal will strip the citizens of this country of many of the civil rights granted them under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It will most assuredly destroy freedom in American homes, schools, churches, clubs, civic groups, employment, and rights of every American citizen. Do you want to sell our American birthright for a mess of political porridge? Surely there are enough patriotic Senators to defeat this unholy bill that will violate all laws, our Constitution and all American tradition. Time has not changed the meaning of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights any more than time has changed the meaning of the Holy Bible. Time has only proven the truth of both the Bible and our Constitution. With free and unlimited debate these vital issues may be discussed, without free and unlimited debate they cannot.
GOODBODY & Co.,
Chicago, Ill., June 10, 1957. SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION, United States Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: I, and all my associates, vigorously oppose any proposal to limi debate in the United States Senate and I can back this up with hundreds of signed petitions. Very sincerely yours,
PHILIP F. HEINTZ,
INDIVIDUALS FOR FREEDOM,
Summit, Miss., June 6, 1957. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: Unfortunately, the large size of our membership and the widely scattered addresses preclude our contacting each member individually. But we can undertake to speak for them almost without hesitation.
It is unthinkable that such a question should have arisen in the Senate but those of us who are familiar with the Marxian program understand the necessity of silencing any opposition to their program of force by law. (Many people are under the delusion that communism would overthrow government by force-ofarms and that is why they tolerate the present plans of force-by-law. They do not realize that force-by-arms comes after silence is imposed upon the hapless victims of communism through force-by-law.)
The effort to shut off free debate is, of course, primarily designed in order to insure passage of the iniquitous so-called civil rights legislation now pending. And this boils down to one sentence: Will Congress again violate the Constitution and take unto itself powers not granted it under that Constitution or will the constitutional rights of the States to regulate and administer their own electoral processes, and the right of trial by jury be held inviolate?
Yes, Senator Talmadge, as national chairman of an organization made up of rugged individuals who count their heritage of freedom America's last, best hope for mankind, and who treasure freedom for all, the Sun editor can say with assurance that there would hardly be a dissenting vote: We stand for free and unlimited debate. And we urge you to use all the influence at your command to restore to us our lost freedoms: Self-determination, self-reliance, self-support, all guaranteed us by the Constitution but lost to us through unconstitutional edicts that violate the laws of God and the American Constitution.
Thank you for seeking the opinion of the grassroots (still America's hope of salvation), and God bless you as you seek to protect all of us. Sincerely,
MARY D. Cain,
LIBERTY & PROPERTY,
San Francisco, Calif., May 20, 1957. SENATE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE SIRS: This organization, composed of patriotic citizens from every State in the Union, is strongly opposed to the proposals which would change Senate rule XXII and would limit debate on vital issues facing the present body,
The maintenance of our historic system of constitutional government depends on the observance of traditional concepts of government. Unlimited debate in the Senate has served this country well in preventing the enactment of vicious laws which would discriminate against a minority.
Government by irresponsible majority can only be referred to as Fascist in nature. Should the Senate become a victim of this type of radical lawmaking, it would serve as a precedent for enactment of even more vicious laws in the future. Sincerely,
CHRISTIAN CITIZENS CRUSADE, INC.,
Atlanta, Ga., May 21, 1957. Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: With regard to your letter of the 11th concerning the matter of free and unlimited debate, speaking for myself, my associates, and everyone of my acquaintance who believes in constitutional government, there is no question but what the preservation of this principle in the United States Senate is of greatest importance if America is going to remain as a free, independent, constitutional Republic.
Unlimited debate is simply one of the great checks and balances under our constitutional system for the protection of the rights and the liberties of our people,
The radicals and leftwingers who are shedding crocodile tears over the fictitious civil rights issue would be the first to deny the rights of those who oppose them. May God bless you and give you wisdom and courage in these days. Sincerely yours,
SHERMAN A. PATTERSON, General Manager.
THE MILITARY ORDER OF THE CRUSADES,
East Orange, N. J., May 25, 1957. Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, United States Senator from Georgia, Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: A copy of your letter of May 16 to the Committee on Rules and Administration re rule XXII relating to limitation of debate has reached my hands from one of my many affiliations. I am most happy to have received it, and am letting you know how I personally feel about this sewing up one's mouth before all has been stated in any particular field or place.
It is fortunate that you have taken up the cudgels for the unlimited debate, argument, or whatever one wants to call it because, only by fully exploring, planning, and talking and debating any question can we know the full import of what is or is not good for a person and in this case, our Nation. I hope that you can get in there fighting and carry on and win this fight. More power to you, Yours truly,
Ross K. Cook.
THE MINUTE WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Inc.,
CALIFORNIA STATE DIVISION,
Van Nuys, Calif., May 21, 1957. Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: Thank you for your letter to me and the '76 Club containing information on proposals to limit Senate debate. The '76 Club is no more, but the information will be placed in the next bulletin of the Minute Women.
You will hear from many people on this matter once we have informed our members. Since Minute Women does not as a group make resolutions, the expressions of opinion will come from individuals.
Speaking only for myself, I recall General MacArthur's 1952 keynote address to the then Republican Party, when he said the greatest liberals were those who wrote and supported the Constitution. This document gives more freedom to more people than any other political credo in history. I would be distrustful of any attempts to alter either the Constitution or the traditional parliamentary procedures in the guise of streamlining or modernizing. Every amendment to the Constitution since the 16th amendment has weakened our Government rather than strengthened it. Any proposals to restrict free debate of any and all issues in the Senate would similarly be a step in the further weakening of the Constitution. No subject likely to come before the Senate is too unimportant to give full hearing to any Senator with a point of view on it.
The only changes I can see necessary in Senate procedure (as a result of testifying before Senate Interior and Insular Affairs re Alaska Mental Health Act, February 1956) is that the Members be present on the floor during debates and voting. Now how this can be done and still sit on committees, etc., I don't know unless we have four Senators from each State: Two for Senate procedures and two for hearings and office work.
Enclosed is a copy of the June issue of American Mercury containing an article on page 79 written by me on the subject which I know best: Mental Health Molds Your Mind. I hope you will give it consideration,
Thank you for your courage in taking the initiative on this important change in Senate rules. Perhaps we can look forward to your undertaking the task our dearly beloved Senator Joe left us. Sincerely yours in guarding the land we love,
MISSISSIPPI STATE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION,
Friars Point, Miss., June 10, 1957. SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE ON RULES, ETC.
Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Do you feel that to choke down those who want full debate on matters of consequence, will develop our Nation?
Why do you all try to govern more and more when you know that the best governed are those who are least governed.
When a nation goes down most everyone goes with it. There are but few exceptions. Yours very truly,
Tom L. Gibson.
NATIONAL AssociaTION OF PRO-AMERICA, ILLINOIS CHAPTER,
River Forest, Ill., June 4, 1957. Hon. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., Chairman, Special Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.' We the Illinois chapter of National Association of Pro-America protest the amendment to Senate rule 22 to limit debate because we believe it would take away protection which the American people have against undesirable legislation.
Mitzi WATERS, President.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS,
Chicago, Ill., May 23, 1957. Mr. HERMAN E. TALMADGE, United States Senate,
Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. TALMADGE: In response to your letter of May 11 may I state the following:
I am against limited debate if limiting implies the suppression of information pertinent to the issue before the House.
We certainly appreciate the conservative emphasis which is being sounded by a number of our political leaders. May we encourage the economic, conservative program now before both Houses. Sincerely yours,
Washington, D. C., May 23, 1957. Hon. HERMAN E. TALMADGE,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. TALMADGE: Your invitation to appear before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration is deeply appreciated.
If it were not for the fact that at the present time I am literally swamped with other pressing matters, which I cannot possibly shirk, I would readily accept your invitation, for I feel that debate on legislation should not be further curtailed.
The Founders of our Republic certainly did not limit debate at the Philadelphia Convention. As a result they brought forth a document providing for the greatest freedom of discussion unequaled in human annals.
We are now celebrating the establishment of the first white settlement on American soil at Jamestown. One of the major exhibits there is the Magna Carta, a document on freedom of speech and assembly. As you know, it was signed by King John at Runneymede in 1215, the forerunner of our own rights of freedom.
It is my humble belief that debate should be free as far as our own elected Representatives to Congress are concerned, as long as the arguments used are germane to the subject under discussion. Only enemies of our country, under influence of a foreign power, should be bridled. There are two methods of destroying our system of government. One is by subversion from without our political circles; the other is by amending our Constitution or circumventing it by unconstitutional laws upheld by a subservient court.
It was the intention of the advocates of the court-packing bill in the thirties to circumvent the Constitution by setting up a High Court with a leftwing complexion which would hold unconstitutional leftist laws constitutional. It was the purpose of the Norris amendment to take the amendment powers from our representatives and to throw them to the organized minorities. We were prominent in the opposition forces which victoriously battled the proposal.
We must guard against every effort to centralize government, either by silencing the representatives of the people, or by other means.
Whenever we may be of service, please feel free to call upon us.
WALTER S. STEELE.
Davenport, Iowa, May 14, 1957.
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: Freedom of speech is guaranteed by our United States Constitution. We voters can speak only through the mouths of our elected Representatives and Senators in the two Houses of Congress.
In no other place is freedom of speech so important as it is in the Senate. No "gag rule” must be imposed.
Our national lawmakers have permitted themselves to be dictated to by the President, who-according to the Constitution—is supposed merely to "execute" the laws which they make. Our national lawmakers have sat helplessly by, permitting the Supreme Court to revise and rewrite the United States Constitution by the "interpretation” of their own inexperience in the field of constitutional law; whereas, the business of the Supreme Court is to uphold all parts of the Constitution-even that part pertaining to States' rights.
Our national lawmakers must not further relinquish their privileges and their obligations by taking away from themselves, and from the people and States represented by them, the right to free and unlimited debate.
I trust that you will do your utmost to insure that there be no change which will limit free debate as granted in Senate rule XXII. Sincerely yours,
Gwen Patton INMAN
Mrs. Gerald O. Inman, National Historian and Past National Chairman of National Defense,
THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF HUGUENOTS IN THE STATE OF Iowa,
Davenport, Iowa, May 14, 1957. Re Senate rule XXII. Senator HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR TALMADGE: Our Iowa State motto is: "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”
I hope that our United States Senators will take that as their motto when they vote upon the question of changing Senate rule XXII, and that their decision will be not to impair in any way or degree their right to free, unlimited debate, for if they do give up that privilege, our Nation will soon have no liberty to prize.
The Supreme Court has robbed the States of their States rights; it has robbed individuals of their freedom of choice. The President forced acceptance of the NATO Status of Forces Treaty, robbing our fighting men overseas of any protection from their United States Constitution; he forbade Senators from voting for the Bricker amendment, which would safeguard our sovereignty and our United States Constitution; he proposed "atoms for peace" and sharing our atomic stockpile with other nations—thereby indicating a willingness to put us at the mercy of fair-weather friends and enemies; he unconstitutionally forces (robs) taxpayers in order to be a “hail fellow, well met" (to be a big shot) among foreigners; he neglects home defenses while building all kinds of defenses and defense-materiel factories on foreign soil to be taken by (and helpful to) our enemies whenever they desire to strike; he has assumed dictatorship by taking upon himself the power to tax (by his outrageous giveaway program) and the power to declare wara power not constitutionally his, but recently stolen by him from Congress.
Upon what doth this man feed—that he has grown so great? He feeds upon the truly great, the MacArthurs and the McCarthys, and he uses his power to scourge them who are so far above him that he can never really touch nor besmirch the hem of their garments.
Thank God for men like them and like you, who put patriotism above self, and right before fear. I know you will lead the fight to keep unchanged Senate rule XXII. Very sincerely,
GWEN PATTON INMAN, Director and State Chairman of National Defense, Iowa Chapter.
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE 44TH ANNUAL CONGRESS, NATIONAL SOCIETY OF
NEW ENGLAND WOMEN, May 22, 1957, SWAMPSCOTT, Mass.
VI. SENATE CLOTURE RULE Whereas civil rights agitators are working to change the Senate rule on the closing of debate in that body in order to make easier the passage of civil-rights legislation; and
Whereas seven bills before a subcommittee of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee propose (1) to change the presently required affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senators duly chosen and sworn to (2) to two-thirds of those present and voting, or (3) to a simple majority vote; and
Whereas traditionally the Senate is a curb upon hasty action by the House and is now the only free parliamentary body left in the world:
Resolved, That the 44th Annual Congress of the National Society of New England Women urge the Rules Committee and the Senate of the United States not to