08 Apr An Is An International Agreement That Requires Senate Approval
The Constitution provides that the President “has the power to enter into contracts by the council and the approval of the Senate, subject to the agreement of two-thirds of the senators present” (Article II, Section 2). Constitutional advocates have given the Senate some of the power of the treaty to give the president the advantage of the Council and the Senate Council to review the power of the president and preserve the sovereignty of states by giving each state an equal voice in the treaty-making process. As Alexander Hamilton stated in The Federalist, No. 75: “The application of treaties as laws strongly advocates the participation of all or part of the legislative body in office to make them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a two-thirds majority contract means that successful contracts must be supported that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement increases the burdens of Senate leadership and may also encourage treaty opponents to participate in a multitude of hesitant tactics in the hope of securing enough votes to ensure defeat. First of all, it was the view of most judges and scholars, that executive agreements, based solely on presidential power, did not become the “law of the land” under the supremacy clause, because these agreements are not “treaties” ratified by the Senate.490 However, the Supreme Court found another basis for compliance with state laws that are anticipated by executive agreements and ultimately relied upon itself on the exercise of the power of the Constitution over the power of external relations within the national government. Ass`v. Garamendi.497 Assuming that the Victim Insurance Relief Act in California was anticipated as interference with the federal government`s conduct in foreign relations, as required by the executive agreements, the court stated that “valid executive agreements are likely to anticipate state law, as are treaties.” 498 Preventive implementation of executive agreements is the result of “the constitutional allocation of foreign policy power to the national government.” 499 Given that there was a “clear conflict” between California law and the policy adopted by the effective exercise of the federal executive branch (the counting of Holocaust-era insurance claims, which “are indeed within the jurisdiction of the foreign executive”), the state law was anticipated.500 The Constitution was silent on how contracts could be terminated. The breach of two contracts under the Jimmy Carter government has been controversial.