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 may do so on the basis of its foreign relations management authority. Despite questions about the constitutionality of executive agreements, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they had the same force as treaties. As executive agreements are made on the authority of the president-in-office, they do not necessarily bind his successors. Most executive agreements were concluded in accordance with a treaty or an act of Congress. However, presidents have sometimes reached executive agreements to achieve goals that would not find the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, after the outbreak of World War II, but before the Americans entered the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 obsolete destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on some British naval bases in the Atlantic. Five years later, in the “Usa” / 494 cases, the Court adopted these principles another case concerning the attribution and recognition of the Soviet government by Litvinov. The question was whether the United States had the right to recover the assets of the New York branch of a Russian insurance company.
The company argued that the Soviet government`s forfeiture decrees did not apply to its property in New York and could not apply in contradiction to the U.S. and New York Constitutions. The court, which was decided by Justice Douglas, brushed aside these arguments. An official statement from the Russian government itself resolved the issue of the extraterritorial operation of the Russian nationalization decree and was binding on the US courts. The power to remove such barriers to full recognition of the rights of our nationals is “a modest tacit power of the president, who is “the only organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.” It was the verdict of the political department that the full recognition of the Soviet government required the resolution of outstanding problems, including the claims of our nationals. We would take over the executive function if we felt that the court decision was not final and conclusive. . . . When the Constitution was originally conceived, the founders felt that it was appropriate to give the president the power to enter into contracts with other nations. However, the power of the president was limited; Under Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President could only enter into a treaty with and with the Council and the approval of the Senate.
In addition, two-thirds of the Senate vote was never easy to obtain. Without the agreement, the president did not have the power to enter into a treaty with another sovereign nation. The contracting process is the same today. Nevertheless, it seems that there is another way to achieve similar results: an executive agreement. The Constitution does not provide for a process in which an executive agreement must be implemented. On the contrary, the Supreme Court`s rulings and the practice of the political branches have confirmed the practice of implementing executive agreements (in uncertainty).