/ ParPCrescousse / 0 commentaires

Which Of The Following Statements About Executive Agreements Is True

Most executive agreements were entered into under a treaty or an act of Congress. Sometimes, however, presidents have entered into executive agreements to achieve goals that would not receive the support of two-thirds of the Senate. For example, after the outbreak of World War II, but before the United States entered the conflict, President Franklin D. Roosevelt negotiated an executive agreement that gave the United Kingdom 50 overflow destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases for some British naval bases in the Atlantic. Krutz and Peake remind scientists to recognize the brilliance and adaptability of the system of separation of powers and to reconsider the effects of presidential use of executive agreements. By examining the role of the Senate and House of Representatives in implementation, the authors show that executive agreements, rather than reflecting the decline of the system of separation of powers, are pragmatic adjustments by coordinated institutions. Krutz and Peake`s review of the growing use of executive agreements offers a valuable lesson in how the president and Congress have responded to the increasing complexity of foreign relations and adapted to meet the demands of an increasingly complex and interconnected international community. Victoria Farrar-Myers, University of Texas, Arlington The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the president to inform the Senate within 60 days of each executive agreement. The Powers of the President to conclude such agreements have not been divided. The notification requirement allowed Congress to vote to cancel an executive agreement or refuse to fund its implementation.

[3] [4] The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give the 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 authority conferred on it to conduct foreign relations. Despite the question of the constitutionality of executive agreements, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they had the same power as treaties. Since executive agreements are concluded under the authority of the outgoing president, they do not necessarily bind his successors. Executive agreements provide the president and Congress with a more effective way to conduct international affairs In the United States, executive agreements are internationally binding when negotiated and concluded under the authority of the president in foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, or from an earlier act of Congress. For example, as Commander-in-Chief, the President negotiates and enters into Status of Forces Agreements (SOFIA) that govern the treatment and disposition of the United States.