The challenge of obtaining a two-thirds majority on treaties was one of the driving forces behind the enormous proliferation of executive agreements after World War II. Thus, in 1952, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. These were more executive agreements than those concluded throughout the century, from 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow rapidly. Another view seemed to be the Supreme Court`s decision in United States v. Belmont,491 confers a domestic effect on Litvinov`s attribution. Judge Sutherland`s opinion of the Court of Justice was based on his opinion curtiss Wright492. A lower court erred, the Tribunal ruled, in dismissing a complaint filed by the United States as a representative of the Soviet Union over certain funds that once belonged to a Russian metallurgical group whose assets had been acquired by the Soviet government. The presidential act of recognition of the Soviet government and the agreements that accompanied it constituted, according to justice, an international pact that the president was “the only organ” of international relations to be concluded for the United States without consulting the Senate. Nor have state laws and directives made a difference in such a situation; While the preponderance of treaties is explicitly defined by the Constitution, the same rule applies “in the case of all international treaties and agreements which ensure that total power over international affairs rests with the national government and is not subject to any restriction or interference by individual States and cannot be subjected”. 493 Initially, most judges and scholars held that executive agreements based exclusively on the power of the president did not become “the law of the land” under the supremacy clause, as these agreements are not “treaties” ratified by the Senate.490 The Supreme Court, however, found another basis for state laws to be anticipated by executive agreements. Ultimately, the transfer of the power of external relations through the Constitution to the national government. The agreement, by which President Monroe set the limits of armament on the Great Lakes in 1817, was an early example of the development of executive contracts.
The agreement was reached through an exchange of notes, which was submitted nearly a year later to the Senate as to whether it was under the power of the President or whether Council and Senate approval were required. The Senate approved the agreement by the required two-thirds majority and it was immediately promulgated by the President, without there being a formal exchange of ratifications.469 Of a type like this, and especially thanks to the status of commander-in-chief, a number of agreements were concluded with Mexico between 1882 and 1896, Granting the right to each country, 470 Coming to such an agreement, the court noted with some uncertainty: “While no act of Congress authorizes the executive service to authorize the introduction of foreign troops, the power to grant such authorization without legislative authorization was likely accepted by the president`s authority as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and maritime forces. It is doubtful, however, whether this power can be extended to the arrest of deserters [of foreign ships] if there is no positive legislation to that effect. 471 Gray justices and three other judges held that such an act by the president should be based on an explicit treaty or statute.472 With respect to the Treaty of Versailles, Warren G. was Wilson`s successor. .