Which Statement Concerning Executive Agreements Between The President

It has the power to enter into contracts by and with the deliberation and approval of the Senate, subject to the agreement of two-thirds of the senators present; and appoints, with and with the advice and approval of the Senate, ambassadors, other ministers and public consuls, Supreme Court judges and all other U.S. officers whose appointments are not otherwise scheduled and who are legislated; but Congress can by law appoint these officers of inferior quality, as they see fit, alone with the president, the courts or the heads of department. The question of whether the president can terminate treaties without the approval of the Senate is more controversial. In 1978, President Carter informed Taiwan of the end of our mutual defense treaty. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the president had the power to terminate the contract, but the Supreme Court of Goldwater v. Carter (1979) returned the verdict without reaching the goal. The termination of the contract at Goldwater was in accordance with the terms of the contract itself. A decision by the President to terminate a contract in violation of its terms would raise additional questions under the supremacy clause, which makes treaties, along with the statutes and the Constitution itself, the “supreme law of the country.” If a contract is subject to Senate approval, the Senate has several options for action. The Senate may approve or reject the Treaty as it is, or match its approval, by inserting amendments to the treaty text into the resolution – reservations, agreements, interpretations, statements or other statements. The President and the other countries concerned must then decide whether to accept the terms and amendments to the legislation, to renegotiate the provisions or to abandon the treaty. Finally, the Senate may decide not to take final action, so that the treaty remains pending in the Senate until it is withdrawn at the request of the Speaker or, occasionally, at the initiative of the Senate. Nor did the Court take into account the original importance of the pause clause.

(For an excellent discussion on the initial meaning, see Michael B.

atis