The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give a president the power to enter into executive agreements. However, it may be authorized to do so by Congress or it may do so on the basis of the power to manage foreign relations granted to it. Despite the question of the constitutionality of executive agreements, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they have the same force as treaties. As executive agreements are concluded on the authority of the President-in-Office, they do not necessarily bind his successors. The exclusive nature of the federal power of foreign relations has long been claimed by the Supreme Court. In 1840, for example, the Court declared that one of the main objectives of the Constitution was to make us a people and a nation, to the extent that we consider our external relations; 14F. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 pp.) 540, 575-76 (1840). See also United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 331 (1937) (The external powers of the United States must be conducted without regard to the laws or directives of the State.
. . . As far as respect for our external relations in general is concerned, national borders are disappearing; The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 606 (1889) (For local interests, the various states of the Union exist; but for national purposes that encompass our relations with foreign nations, we are only one people, one nation, one power); Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.P. 52, 63 (1941) (Our system of government. . . the federal power must remain completely free from local interference in the field that influences foreign relations). One hundred years later, the Court has remained firm with regard to the exclusivity of the Confederation. No state can rewrite our foreign policy in such a way that it corresponds to its own domestic policy.
Power over foreign affairs is not shared by States; it belongs exclusively to the national government. It shall not be exercised in such a way as to be in conformity with the laws of the State or the policy of the State, whether expressed in constitutions, statutes or court decisions. And state policy becomes totally irrelevant to judicial investigations if the United States, which acts in its constitutional field, seeks to enforce its foreign policy in court.15 United States Against Pink, 315 U.P. 203, 233-34 (1942). Chief Justice Stone and Justice Roberts contradicted. During the nineteenth century, government practice treated the power to terminate treaties as being shared between the legislature and the executive branch205.205 Congress often authorized 206 or, in 207, informed the president to inform foreign governments of the termination of the treaty during that period. In rare cases, only the Senate has passed a resolution authorizing the president to terminate a contract.208 Presidents have regularly followed the approval or instruction of the legislature.209 On other occasions, Congress or the Senate have approved the president`s ex post facto denunciation, even though the executive branch had already notified the foreign government of a termination.210 The Paquete Habana, 175 U.P. . .