Simone Lawson
Executive agreements are binding agreements between the heads of government of two or more nations that have not been ratified by the legislature. In the United States, executive agreements are made solely by the President and are considered politically binding, distinguishing them from treaties, which are legally binding. While the US Constitution does not explicitly grant the President the power to conclude executive agreements, they may be authorized to do so by Congress or based on their power to conduct foreign relations. This power is considered an implied power of the President, who is the 'sole organ of the Federal Government in the field of international relations'. The Supreme Court has ruled that executive agreements have the same force as treaties, but they are not subject to the same constitutional requirements for ratification as treaties. This raises questions about the constitutionality of executive agreements and the balance of power between the President and Congress.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Nature | An executive agreement is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature as treaties are ratified. |
| Binding | Executive agreements are considered politically binding but not legally binding like treaties. |
| International Law | Some authors consider executive agreements to be treaties under international law as they bind both parties. |
| US Constitutional Law | Executive agreements are not considered treaties under the US Constitution as they do not require the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate. |
| Purpose | Executive agreements are often used to bypass the requirements of national constitutions for treaty ratification. |
| Authorization | Executive agreements are authorized by the President's power to conduct foreign relations or by an act of Congress. |
| Supreme Court Rulings | The US Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that executive agreements have the same force as treaties. In United States v. Pink (1942), the Court held that they have the same legal status as treaties and do not require Senate approval. |
| Implied Powers | The Supreme Court has construed Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution as grounding the president's implied powers. |
| Judicial Determination | The judiciary typically determines whether the president has the implied power to act. |
| Leading Case | The leading case on the president's implied powers is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). |
Explore related products
$29.4 $31.95
What You'll Learn
- Executive agreements are not in the US Constitution
- Presidents rely on implied powers from the Constitution's express powers
- Presidents may be authorized to make executive agreements by Congress
- The Supreme Court ruled executive agreements have the same force as treaties
- Presidents cannot enter unilaterally into executive agreements beyond their powers
Executive agreements are not in the US Constitution
Executive agreements are not mentioned in the US Constitution. However, they are one of three mechanisms by which the United States enters into binding international obligations. Executive agreements are made solely by the US President and are considered politically binding, distinguishing them from treaties, which are legally binding and require the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate to qualify as such.
Despite the lack of explicit mention in the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that executive agreements have the same force as treaties. This ruling was based on the Constitution's vesting of foreign relations power in the national government, with the President as the 'sole organ of the Federal Government in the field of international relations'. This interpretation of executive agreements has allowed Presidents to use them to achieve purposes that may not have the support of two-thirds of the Senate, as would be required for a treaty.
The Supreme Court has also established a framework for determining whether the President has the implied power to act in certain situations. For example, in Dames & Moore v. Regan, the Court concluded that Congress had authorised various presidential actions or had long acquiesced in others. Additionally, in United States v. Pink (1942), the Court held that international executive agreements validly made have the same legal status as treaties and do not require Senate approval.
While executive agreements can be powerful tools for the President to conduct foreign relations, they are not without limitations. Presidents cannot enter unilaterally into executive agreements on matters beyond their constitutional authority. In such cases, an agreement in the form of a congressional-executive agreement or a treaty with Senate advice and consent would be required.
Napoleon's Rise: Enforcing the Constitution of 1799
You may want to see also
Presidents rely on implied powers from the Constitution's express powers
The US Constitution does not specifically grant the president the power to conclude executive agreements. However, the president may be authorised to do so by Congress, or they may do so based on the power granted to them to conduct foreign relations. The Supreme Court has ruled that valid executive agreements can preempt state law, just as treaties do, and carry the same force as treaties.
Executive agreements are one of three mechanisms by which the US enters into binding international obligations. They are considered politically binding, distinguishing them from treaties, which are legally binding. While some authors consider executive agreements to be treaties under international law, under US constitutional law, they are not considered treaties for the purposes of the Treaty Clause, which requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate.
Presidents who rely on their implied powers typically do so based on the Constitution's grant of express powers, reasoning that the express powers are broad and authorize their actions. The judiciary determines whether the president has the implied power to act, and the Supreme Court has established a framework for this. The leading case on the president's implied powers is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). In this case, President Harry S. Truman issued Executive Order 10340, commanding the Secretary of Commerce, Charles Sawyer, to "take possession" of steel mills to keep them operational during the Korean War. The Supreme Court held that neither the Constitution's grant of executive power nor the Commander in Chief Clause authorized the president to do so without congressional authorization.
The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Pink (1942) is also notable, as it held that international executive agreements validly made have the same legal status as treaties and do not require Senate approval. The Court's opinion in Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981) also provided insight into executive agreements, concluding that Congress had either authorized various presidential actions or had long acquiesced in others.
Political Ideologies: Impacting Society's Values and Norms
You may want to see also
Presidents may be authorized to make executive agreements by Congress
In the United States, executive agreements are made solely by the President. They are one of three mechanisms by which the country enters into binding international obligations. While the US Constitution does not specifically grant the President the power to conclude executive agreements, they may be authorized to do so by Congress. Alternatively, they may do so based on the power granted to them to conduct foreign relations.
Executive agreements are often used to bypass the requirements of national constitutions for treaty ratification. They are considered politically binding, distinguishing them from treaties, which are legally binding. Some authors consider executive agreements to be treaties under international law as they bind the US and another sovereign state. However, under US constitutional law, executive agreements are not considered treaties for the purpose of the Treaty Clause of the US Constitution, which requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate to qualify as a treaty.
Presidents have concluded executive agreements to achieve purposes that would not command the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, in 1941, the State Department entered into an executive agreement with the Danish minister in Washington, whereby the US acquired the right to occupy Greenland for defence purposes. This was in consideration of the German occupation of Denmark.
The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to inform the Senate within 60 days of any executive agreement being made. While this notification requirement does not restrict presidential powers to make such agreements, it enables Congress to vote to cancel an executive agreement or refuse to fund its implementation.
The US Constitution's Impact on Slavery
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Supreme Court ruled executive agreements have the same force as treaties
The use of executive agreements has been a significant part of the US government's functioning, especially in the context of international relations. An executive agreement is an agreement between the US and a foreign government that is less formal than a treaty and is not subject to the constitutional requirement for ratification by two-thirds of the US Senate. The US Constitution does not explicitly empower the president to conclude executive agreements. However, the president may be authorized to do so by Congress or based on the power granted to conduct foreign relations.
Despite questions about the constitutionality of executive agreements, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they carry the same force as treaties. This ruling affirmed that executive agreements, though made solely under the incumbent president's authority, hold binding power under international law. This ruling also clarified that executive agreements do not necessarily bind the incumbent president's successors.
The distinction between executive agreements and treaties lies in their process and formality. Treaties are formal agreements between nations that become part of international law. The US Constitution outlines the process for treaties, requiring the president to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate, with a two-thirds majority concurrence, for a treaty to be ratified. Executive agreements, on the other hand, bypass the Senate's approval and are made at the president's discretion or pursuant to a treaty or act of Congress.
The use of executive agreements has increased significantly over time, especially during World War II and the Cold War. From 1940 to 1989, presidents signed nearly 800 treaties but negotiated more than 13,000 executive agreements. This trend highlights the practicality and flexibility of executive agreements in conducting foreign relations, particularly when pursuing objectives that may not garner sufficient support in the Senate.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981) further elaborated on the legal effect of executive agreements. The Court reiterated that valid executive agreements could preempt state law, just as treaties do, based on the Constitution's allocation of foreign relations power to the National Government. This ruling underscores the legal weight and consequences of executive agreements, solidifying their status as powerful tools in international relations.
Florida's 1865 Constitution: A Post-Civil War Reset
You may want to see also
Presidents cannot enter unilaterally into executive agreements beyond their powers
The US Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the power to conclude executive agreements. However, the president may be authorised to do so by Congress or through their power to conduct foreign relations. While executive agreements are not considered treaties under US law, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they hold the same force as treaties.
Executive agreements are one of three mechanisms through which the US enters into binding international obligations. They are often used to bypass the constitutional requirements for treaty ratification. However, the president cannot enter unilaterally into executive agreements on matters beyond their constitutional authority. In such cases, an agreement would need to be in the form of a congressional-executive agreement or a treaty with Senate advice and consent.
The Supreme Court has interpreted Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution as providing the basis for the president's implied powers. The leading case on this issue is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), in which the Court held that neither the Constitution's grant of executive power nor the Commander in Chief Clause authorised the president to act without congressional approval.
Justices Robert H. Jackson and Felix Frankfurter's concurring opinions in Youngstown are particularly significant regarding the executive's implied powers. They agreed that President Truman did not have the power to seize steel mills during the Korean War, even in the face of impending labour strikes that threatened to shut down steel manufacturing.
In Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), the Court concluded that Congress had authorised various presidential actions or had long acquiesced to them. The Court reiterated that valid executive agreements can preempt state law, just as treaties do, based on the Constitution's allocation of foreign relations power to the national government.
The Glorious Revolution's Influence on the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
An executive agreement is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature as treaties are ratified.
Executive agreements are not considered treaties under the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that they have the same force as treaties and can preempt state law.
The legal basis for executive agreements is the president's authority in foreign policy as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces or authorization from Congress. The Supreme Court has also construed Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution as grounding the president's implied powers.
While the president can enter into executive agreements without explicit congressional authorization, there are limits to their unilateral power. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution's grant of executive power does not authorize the president to act without at least some form of acquiescence from Congress. The judiciary typically determines whether the president has the implied power to act.
