First, the question, which has not yet been conclusively clarified, arises as to whether Congress can legislate to prohibit or otherwise restrict exclusive executive agreements. Although sweeping restrictions on such agreements, including the 1953-1954 Bricker Amendment Bill, have yet to be passed, Congress has nonetheless at times limited the president`s authority in a way that appears to exclude certain executive arrangements. For example, the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which requires congressional approval to introduce combat troops into hostile situations, arguably discourages the president from making deals that would engage U.S. armed forces in undeclared foreign wars. Similarly, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act of 1961 prohibits arms limitation or reduction, “except under the Treaty, the . or unless authorized to do so by other laws of the United States Congress. The validity of such restrictions on presidential authority has been challenged by presidents and has not yet been determined by the Supreme Court. An executive agreement based on a contract has the same validity and effect as the contract itself, provided that it is consistent with the intent, scope and purpose of the parent contract, the same validity and effect as the contract itself and is subject to the same constitutional restrictions. Derived from one of the elements of the “highest law in the land,” it prevails over all inconsistent state laws and follows the usual rule that later favors the instrument in the event of inconsistency with a federal law. A striking example of a treaty-based executive agreement is the traditional compromise, which defines the conditions for submission to judgment or arbitration under a basic convention. Another is found in the hundreds of status-of-forces agreements and other agreements needed to implement the North Atlantic Treaty, the linchpin of U.S. policy in Europe since World War II.
Second, while it is generally accepted that under the “executive power” clause, the president has the power to enter into exclusive executive agreements that are not contrary to legislation in areas in which Congress has primary responsibility, the question arises as to whether the president alone can enter into an agreement inconsistent with an act of Congress. or whether a single executive agreement can replace previous inconsistent congressional bills. The prevailing view, rooted in the belief that it would be unscrupulous for an act of one person – the president – to repeal an act of Congress is that the executive branch alone is invalid as law in the United States to the extent that it conflicts with an earlier act of Congress in an area of congressional jurisdiction. This is the position of the Federal Court of Appeals in United States v. Guy W. Capps, Inc. (4th Circuit, 1953) and the American Law Institute. However, the Supreme Court has not yet issued a final decision in this regard. The controversy surrounds the president`s legal authority to make executive arrangements. The practice of unilateral presidential agreements with foreign nations is at odds with the constitutional emphasis on joint decision-making and the drafters` understanding of the scope and extent of treaty power, which Hamilton wrote in a letter under the pseudonym “Camillus” as “competent for all provisions that might require the requirements of national affairs; responsible for the conclusion of covenant treaties, trade treaties, peace treaties and all other types of conventions common to nations. And it was emphatic for this reason that it was so carefully guarded; the cooperation of two-thirds of the Senate with the President, who are required to conclude any treaty. The text of the Constitution does not mention executive agreements.
Moreover, no reference has been made to it in the Constitutional Convention or in the State`s ratification conventions. The Federalist Papers are also silent on this issue. There is therefore no support in the architecture of the Constitution for the use of executive agreements. .