Although the Supreme Court did not address the issue directly, many courts and commentators agree that provisions of international agreements that would require the United States to exercise powers that the Constitution assigns exclusively to Congress should not be considered autonomous, and that enforcement laws are necessary to confer such provisions on domestic legal effects.117 Sub-jurisdictions have concluded that Congress controls the power of money. Because Congress controls the power of the wallet. 118 Other leading jurisdictions have proposed that provisions of the contract purporting to create criminal liability119 or increase revenue120 should not be considered self-processing, since these powers are the exclusive prerogative of Congress. Most executive agreements were concluded in accordance with a treaty or an act of Congress. However, presidents have sometimes reached executive agreements to achieve goals that would not find the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, after the outbreak of World War II, but before the Americans entered the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 obsolete destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on some British naval bases in the Atlantic. The vast majority of international agreements concluded by the United States are not treaties, but executive agreements – executive agreements that are not submitted to the Senate for consideration and approval.41 Federal law requires the executive branch to notify Congress at the entry of such an agreement.42 Executive agreements are not specifically discussed in the Constitution. But they are considered to be valid international pacts under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and in historical practice.43 Although the United States has entered into international pacts since the early days of the Republic through executive agreements, 45 commentators estimate that more than 90% of international agreements concluded by the United States have taken the form of an executive agreement46.
, in the United States v. Pink (1942) found that international executive agreements, which were generally concluded, have the same legal status as treaties and do not require Senate approval. To Reid v. Concealed (1957), the Tribunal, while reaffirming the President`s ability to enter into executive agreements, found that such agreements could not be contrary to existing federal law or the Constitution. Britannica.com: Encyclopedia Article on Executive Agreement Dictum in Garamendi acknowledges some of the questions that can be asked about Zschernig. The Zschernig court did not define the language prescribed as a preventive measure in the Constitution and commentators found that a respectable argument can be made that the Constitution does not require a general measure of foreign policy prevention not related to the supremacy clause and beyond the specific prohibitions of the Constitution23Note.B asserts that Article I , the specific prohibitions of Article I , of entering into contracts, of maintaining troops in peacetime and of issuing letters of mark and retaliation, would not have been necessary if a more general and dormant power of external relations had been sought. Similarly, it would not have been necessary to make treaties the supreme law of the country if, apart from the supremacy clause, there was a more general preventive power in foreign policy. See Ramsey, supra. 24Note of powerIn the past that the president is part of the executive conferred on the President by art. II, 1, he has the authority to conduct foreign relations. The Garamendi court raised a fair question as to whether respect for executive external relations required a categorical choice between the opposing theories on the ground, clearly emphasized in Zschernig`s opinions, and conflict predators.