Executive agreement of Congress, a binding agreement between the United States and a foreign country, which is easier to enact than a formal treaty, but is technically more limited. The presidents advanced four sources of constitutional authority: (1) the duty of the President, as Director General, to represent the nation in foreign affairs; (2) the power to receive ambassadors and other public ministers; (3) the Authority as Commander-in-Chief; and (4) the duty to “ensure that laws are faithfully enforced.” These assertions are particularly permanent, are undoubtedly at odds with the powers of Congress and weigh on credibility. It is entirely possible that, in the context of military hostilities authorized by Congress, the President, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, may consider it desirable to conclude a ceasefire agreement with an enemy, when that would be subject to congressional control. It may also be necessary for the president, in the military context, to reach an agreement on the protection of troops or the sending of troops. But it is difficult to justify unilateral executive agreements on the basis of these other assertions. What is the difference between a contract and an executive agreement? Unlike the executive contract termination procedure, which has not received much opposition from Congress in the past, constitutional requirements to end Senate-approved ratified treaties have been the subject of occasional debate between the legislature and the executive branch. Some commentators have argued that the termination of contracts is analogous to the end of federal statutes.197 Since national statutes can only be terminated by the same procedure in which they were adopted198 – that is, by a majority decision in both houses and by the signature of the President or by a veto -, these commentators argue that treaties must also be terminated by a procedure similar to their creation and which includes the legislative branch. Clark, Domesticating Sole Executive Agreements, 93 Va. L.
Rev. 1573, 1661 (2007) (arguing that the text and history of the Constitution support the position that treaties and executive agreements are not interchangeable, and also arguing that the “Supremacy” clause should be read in order to avoid, in general, the repeal of exclusive executive agreements); Laurence H. Tribe, Taking Text and Structure Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1221, 1249-67 (1995) (on the grounds that the contractual clause is the exclusive means for Congress to approve important international agreements); John C. Yoo, Laws as Treaties?: The Constitutionality of Congressional-Executive Agreements, 99 L. Rev. 757, 852 (2001) (on the grounds that treaties are the constitutional form required for Congress to approve an international agreement on measures outside the constitutional competence of Congress, including human rights, political/military alliances and arms control, but are not necessary for agreements of measures under the powers of Congress.