The first part of this article describes the legal regime of executive agreements. This begins with the description of the different types of executive agreements and the extent of the executive`s legal power to enter into them. Next, it looks at what we call the “transparency regime” for executive agreements — how Congress has regulated executive agreements, not by requiring agreements to be approved individually after they have been negotiated, but by requiring disclosure to Congress itself and to the public after the agreement was finalized. This review clearly shows that, although Congress has merely delegated the power to issue executive agreements to the executive branch, it has intervened on several occasions to effectively monitor and monitor how that power is used. The Court upheld these principles five years later in United States v. Pink, 7Footnote315 U.S. 203 (1942). another case concerned the Litvinov mission and the recognition of the Soviet government. The question arose as to whether the United States was entitled to recover the assets of the New York branch of a Russian insurance company. The company argued that the Soviet government`s confiscation orders did not apply to its property in New York and could not be enforced in accordance with the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution. The Court, which referred to Justice Douglas, dismissed those arguments.

An official statement by the Russian government itself settled the issue of the extraterritorial functioning of the Russian nationalization decree and was binding on U.S. courts. The power to remove such obstacles to the full recognition as settlement of the claims of our nationals was a modest implicit power of the president, who is the “only organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.” The Political Department considered that the full recognition of the Soviet government required the solution of the outstanding problems, including the demands of our nationals. We would usurp the executive function if we believed that the decision is not final for the courts. The presidents highlighted four sources of constitutional authority: (1) the president`s duty as chief executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs; (2) the power to receive ambassadors and other public ministers; (3) the authority of Commander-in-Chief; and (4) the duty to “ensure that laws are faithfully enforced.” These demands are particularly open-ended, no doubt contrary to the powers of Congress, and strain the scope of credibility. It may well be that, in the context of military hostilities authorized by Congress, the President, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, considers it desirable to conclude a ceasefire agreement with an enemy, even though that enemy is subject to Congressional control. It may also be necessary for the president to reach an agreement in the military context on the protection of troops or the deployment of troops. But it is difficult to justify unilateral executive agreements on the basis of these other demands.

The accompanying notes also allow us, for the first time, to identify the judicial authorities cited in support of the agreements. By studying the thousands of citations to judicial authorities in the cover notes, based on the strength of the authority granted to enter into agreements, we can assess how the executive branch invokes the power delegated by Congress to enter into agreements. We note here that less than half of the cover notes cite an authority that gives the executive explicit and explicit authority to enter into a binding international agreement.15×15. See section II.B.2, pp. 677-91. Almost one-fifth of the notes cite judicial authorities who, in our view, do not support the conclusion of an agreement.16×16. See section II.B.2, pp. 677-91. In addition, cover notes often cite Article II of the United States Constitution as well as other judicial bodies; Little distinction is made between agreements based solely on the constitutional authority of the president and those based on powers granted by Congress or under an earlier treaty. In fact, perhaps the most remarkable thing we have discovered in trying to analyze and describe how the transparency regime works in practice is the disorganization of the system. Several judicial agencies are cited without providing clarity on the central legal basis for reaching an agreement, judicial authorities are not systematically or carefully cited, public databases of agreements are unfortunately absent, and reports to Congress are slow and probably incomplete. Controversy over 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 breadth of treaty power, which Hamilton wrote in a letter under the pseudonym “Camillus” as “competent for all provisions that might require the needs of national affairs; responsible for the conclusion of covenant treaties, trade treaties, peace treaties and any other type of customary convention between 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 is required to conclude any treaty. The text of the Constitution does not mention executive agreements. Moreover, it was not referred to in the Constitutional Convention or in the ratification conventions of the States. 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. But their use has flourished; The presidents claim independent constitutional power to do so, and the judiciary has confirmed these presidential claims to the authority. The question of constitutional authority, which gives presidents a unilateral ability to enter into executive agreements, must be distinguished from what would rightly be called legislative-executive agreements, which Congress has authorized the president to conclude, and which generally cause little controversy, if only because they are more constitutionally desirable than unilateral agreements. .