Main image
14th April
written by Tellus

The President`s executive means the enforcement (execution) of laws, including contracts. However, contrary to the legislation, contracts have integrated termination clauses. The power of the president to “execute” a contract therefore logically implies the power to apply, if necessary, this termination clause; In the best case scenario, the VFA would be more like a single executive or presidential agreement that would be valid if it were concluded on the basis of the exclusive power of U.S. presidents, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Interviewees argue that the United States, with the exception of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), has concluded 78 Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) extending privileges and immunities to U.S. forces deployed abroad44, similar to the provisions of the VFA. However, respondents were unable to see whether these executive agreements were exclusive executive agreements or whether they were concluded in accordance with congressional authorization or if they had been approved by contract. This detail is important in light of the above discussion of the Senate`s meaning on criminal justice on U.S. forces deployed abroad.

If the VFA ends, what will happen to other military treaties and agreements with the United States? Through these consolidated petitions11 for certiorari and the ban, the petitioners – as legislators, non-governmental organizations, citizens and taxpayers – conferred the constitutionality of the AFA and accuse them of a serious abuse of power when the agreement was ratified. It will help clarify the legal status of the VFA under U.S. law if we compare the legal strength of executive agreements and treaties alone. Under international law, treaties and executive agreements bind the United States in the same way.45 If one distinguishes between treaties and executive agreements, this must be in the constitutional law of the United States.46 Distinctions, if any, between the legal strength of treaties and executive agreements at the national level can be dealt with at three levels. , namely: (1) state law; (2) Congressional acts and contracts; and (3) the U.S. Constitution. On the other side of the coin, it is argued that if the President of the United States enters into an exclusive executive agreement in accordance with his exclusive authority in the field of foreign relations, such an agreement may prevail as a matter of priority against former inconsistent federal statutes.74 In this situation, the doctrine of separation of powers may allow the President of the United States to violate the Act of Congress to violate the Act of Congress. , previously inconsistency as a “constitutional invasion of power.” 76 With regard to voting, Article VII of Article VII requires that an international treaty or agreement be valid and effective, valid and effective, by at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate.

Comments are closed.