Congressional efforts to curb the practice of executive agreements and stem the tide of unilateralism have been largely unsuccessful. The first and most important effort came in 1951, when Senator John Bricker proposed a constitutional amendment to limit the use and impact of executive agreements and treaties within the United States. Bricker Amendment supporters, including the leaders of the American Bar Association, found virtue in the proposal for a variety of reasons. Some, as Alexander DeConde explained, “have become angry at executive agreements like Yalta`s” and have tried to reduce the president`s unilateralism on foreign policy. Others feared the impact of treaties such as the United Nations Charter, the Genocide Convention and the United Nations draft peace on human rights within the United States. Still others supported them as a useful “isolationist” response to “the internationalism of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Controversy surrounds the president`s legal authority to enter into executive agreements. The practice of the president`s unilateral agreements with foreign nations is contrary to the constitutional emphasis placed on joint decision-making and the Framer`s understanding of the scope and extent of contractual power, which Hamilton wrote in a letter under the pseudonym “Camillus” as “competent for all requirements that might require the requirements of national affairs; responsible for the establishment of alliances, trade agreements, peace agreements and any other type of conventions that are common among nations…. And that`s why it was kept with so much care. the collaboration of two-thirds of the Senate with the speaker, who have an obligation to make any contract, whatever. The constitutional text does not mention executive agreements.

Moreover, there was no indication of this in the Constitutional Convention or in the national conventions of Animal Ratifir. On this subject, too, federalist documents are silent. There is therefore no support in the architecture of the Constitution for the use of executive agreements. But their use has flourished; Presidents claim an independent constitutional power to do so, and the judiciary has upheld such claims of authority on the part of the president.