It is high time that Congress took a close look at the process of international agreements. These agreements are essential to the effective functioning of the United States in the world, but they should be concluded so that the American people can understand the commitments made on their behalf. Despite the growth and development of the U.S. agreement processes, Congress has not seriously overhauled the Case Act regime and has never sought to introduce administrative rigor into the process of developing the agreement. It`s time for a change. This recognition of the preventive scope of the executive agreements was part of the movement for a revision of the Constitution in the 1950s to limit the president`s powers in this area, but this movement failed.496 The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to inform the Senate within 60 days of an executive agreement. The president`s powers to conclude such agreements have not been restricted. The reporting requirement allowed Congress to vote in favor of repealing an executive agreement or to refuse funding for its implementation.   During the 19th century, government practice dealt with the power to terminate contracts as they were shared between the legislature and the executive branch.205 Congress authorized 206 or 207 instructed the President to grant termination of the contract to foreign governments during that period. In rare cases, the Senate alone has passed a resolution authorizing the president to terminate a contract.208 Presidents have consistently complied with the authorization or leadership of the legislative branch.209 On other occasions, Congress or the Senate approved the president`s resignation after the fact, while the foreign government executive had already resigned.210 Recently, some foreign relations experts have advocated for foreign relations.
that the practice of international agreement has developed in this way, that some modern executive agreements are no longer in the three generally accepted categories of executive agreements.69 These scholars assert that some recent executive agreements are not based on a particular source of presidential authority. B as an individual status or an autonomous right to constitutional authority70 Proponents of a new form of executive agreement, however, argue that the identification of a certain status of authorization or constitutional power is not necessary. , if the President already has the national authority to implement the executive agreement; The agreement does not require any changes to national legislation; 71 Opponents of this proposed new paradigm of the executive agreement argue that it is not compatible with the principles of separation of powers, which they believe require the President to authorize the conclusion of international agreements either by the Constitution, by a ratified treaty or by an act of Congress. 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. 447 Such agreements, in the form of treaties providing for the reciprocal reduction of Congressional obligations, have often been concluded, but from the Customs Act of 1890,449, Congress began to introduce provisions authorizing the executive branch to negotiate reciprocity without the need to negotiate reciprocity, beginning with the Customs Act of 1890.449. to take further legislative action.