Select Page

Although a majority of Bond refused to reconsider Hollande`s interpretation of the Tenth Amendment,148 the Court ruled in favour of the accused on the basis of principles of legal interpretation.149 In interpreting a statute to interpret a treaty, Bond stated: “It is appropriate to refer to the fundamental principles of federalism, which are enshrined in the Constitution in order to conclude ambiguity . . . 150 Applying these principles, the Issuing Court found that Congress did not intend to enter areas of traditional state authority, that the Chemical Weapons Convention did not apply to the actions of the commercial spouse.151 In other words, the majority of Bond did not express concern about Hollande`s conclusion that the Tenth Amendment did not restrict The power of Congress to pass legislation on the implementation of contracts. 152 When an international agreement requires implementing laws or budget allocations to meet U.S. obligations, the task of passing this legislation rests with Congress.131 In the early years of constitutional practice, Congress has adopted a debate on whether Congress was not obligated – and only authorized – but the question did not arise. 133 Recently, some foreign relations experts have argued that the practice of the international agreement has developed so that some modern executive agreements no longer fit into the three generally accepted categories of executive agreements69. that some recently concluded executive agreements were not based on a certain source of authority from the presidency. As an individual status or an autonomous claim of constitutional authority70 Proponents of a new form of executive agreement argue, however, that it is not necessary to identify a specific authorisation status or constitutional power if the president already has the national power to implement the executive agreement; The agreement does not require any changes to national legislation; 71 Opponents of this proposed new paradigm of the executive agreement argue that it is not compatible with the principles of separation of powers, which they believe require the President to authorize the conclusion of international agreements either by the Constitution, by a ratified treaty or by an act of Congress.