What Does Executive Agreement Mean In History
Of course, the raw figures must be carefully interpreted. Only a very small minority of all executive agreements were based exclusively on the powers of the President as commander-in-chief and external relations body; The rest was approved in advance by Congress by law or by the provisions of the treaty ratified by the Senate. 390 Therefore, consideration of the constitutional importance of executive agreements must begin with a differentiation between the types of agreements that must be classified under this heading. 391 [note 448] See However United States v. Guy W. Capps, Inc., 204 F. 2d 655 (4. Cir., 1953), the President, Parker J., considering that an executive agreement reached by the President without authorization or ratification by Congress cannot supersede domestic law, which is inconsistent with such an agreement. The Supreme Court upheld it for other reasons and refused to consider the case. 348 U.S. 296 (1955). Although the two agreements are both treaties and agreements between Congress and the Executive, they are legally different instruments. For example, agreements between Congress and the executive branch cannot deal with matters outside the listed powers of Congress and the President (those powers, which were expressly granted to Congress and the President in Article I, Section 8 and Section II, Section 2, of the U.S.
Constitution), while treaties can do so. Moreover, according to the Constitution, a treaty will only be ratified if at least two-thirds of the Senate votes in favour of it. On the other hand, an executive agreement of Congress with a single simple majority becomes mandatory in both houses of Congress. Agreements between Congress and the executive branch should not be confused with executive agreements reached by the president alone. The Hull-Lothian Agreement .-With the fall of France in June 1940, President Roosevelt entered into two executive agreements this summer whose overall effect was to transform the role of the United States from strict neutrality in relation to European war to that of the semi-wars. The first agreement was with Canada and provided for the creation of a permanent joint defence commission that would take into account “more broadly the defence of the northern half of the Western Hemisphere.” 432 Second, and more important than the first, the Hull-Lothian Agreement of 2 September 1940, under which the United States, in exchange for leasing certain sites for british West Atlantic naval bases, handed over fifty obsolete destroyers to the British government, which had been recycled and returned to service. 433 And on 9 April 1941, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, taking into account the German occupation of Denmark, concluded an executive agreement with the Danish Min ister in Washington, in which the United States acquired the right to occupy Greenland for defence purposes. 434 [footnote 390] An authority concluded that of the executive agreements reached between 1938 and 1957, only 5.9% were based exclusively on the president`s constitutional authority. McLaughlin, The Scope of the Treaty Power in the States-II, 43 Minn. L. Rev.
651, 721 (1959). Another study, which overlapped somewhat, showed that during the period 1946-1972, 88.3% of the agreements of executing were based, at least in part, on legal force; 6.2% were based on contracts, 5.5% solely on executive powers. International Agreements: An Analysis of Executive Regulations and Practices, A Study Prepared for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by the Congressional Research Service, 95th Congress., 1st sess. (Comm. Print) (1977), 22. [Footnote 389] cit., n.262, xxxiv-xxxv, 13-16. Of course, not all of these agreements are published, either for reasons of national security or secrecy, or because the purpose is trivial.