In addition to treaties that do not enter into force without the Council and the senate agreement and which can become binding on the United States, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are seen in the United States as executive agreements and not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic political importance. International law considers that any form of international agreement is binding, regardless of its designation by national law. The President-in-Chief of the United States Army and Navy and the militia of several states when appointed to the service proper of the United States; It may seek the written opinion of the senior official in each of the executive services on all matters relating to the duties of their respective functions, and it is entitled to grant pardons and pardons in the event of a violation of the United States, except in the event of impeachment. Even if the decisions of the Court of Justice regarding compliance with executive agreements are not inaccurate, the practice of executive agreements must be more clearly limited. The high obstacle posed by the board and approval under a super-majority rule should prevent foreign entanglements. Therefore, purely executive agreements should only be allowed if they are slaughter agreements, such as prisoner exchanges or settlements, or if they are based exclusively on independent presidential authorities, such as the power to recognize foreign national states. See Michael B. Ramsey, The Constitution`s Text in Foreign Affairs 191-217 (2007).

The challenge of securing a two-thirds majority on contracts was one of the motivations for the huge increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for example, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. These were more executive agreements than those concluded during the century from 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow rapidly. The Constitution provides for the Senate to exercise its “deliberation and approval” in drafting treaties, an ambiguous term that presidents and senators have discussed since the country`s inception. During the War of 1812, Delaware Senator James Bayard was a member of the delegation to negotiate the Treaty of Gant. His presence raised the question of whether the senators on the negotiating team would encourage the Senate to approve the treaty or whether it would violate the separation of powers. This debate has been going on for generations without resolution. The implementation of executive agreements increased considerably after 1939.

Prior to 1940, the U.S. Senate had ratified 800 treaties and presidents had concluded 1,200 executive agreements; From 1940 to 1989, during World War II and the Cold War, presidents signed nearly 800 treaties, but concluded more than 13,000 executive treaties. Similarly, it is unfair for the Court to allow the courts to appoint executive officers as long as there is no “disagreement” between the functions normally performed by the courts and the performance of their appointment obligation.” Morrison v. Olson. It is true that the appointment clause allows “courts” to appoint “lower quality officers.” But just as the authority of the president according to the appointment clause on the basis of Article II can be read, the authority of the courts must also be read on the basis of Article III, which defines their own powers. The judiciary is defined as an “extension to business.” The appointment jurisdiction of the courts is therefore more naturally read as an accessory to their defined powers. As a result, courts may appoint officers outside of their own business decision-making work, such as clerks and judicial officers, but not executive officials.