If the president has an executive agreement, what kind of commitment does he impose on the United States? It is equally clear that it can impose international obligations with potentially serious consequences and that such obligations may exist over a longer period.488 The nature of national obligations imposed by executive agreements is not so obvious. Do contracts and executive agreements have the same impact on domestic politics?489 contracts that contradict state law by applying the supremacy clause. While it may be that executive agreements entered into on the basis of congressional authorization or contractual obligation may also be inferred from the supremacy clause, this textual basis for pre-emption is probably not provided for executive agreements based exclusively on the president`s constitutional powers. Compare Bradford C. Clark, Domesticating Sole Executive Agreements, 93 Va. L. Rev. 757, 852 (2001) (arguing that treaties are the constitutional form necessary for the approval by Congress of an international agreement with respect to acts which do not fall within the constitutional competence of the Congress, including matters relating to human rights, political/military alliances and arms control, but are not necessary to conclude agreements on measures falling within the competence of K under Article I of the Constitution, such as agreements on international trade; with the third restatement, note 1, § 303 n.8 (“Once it has been argued that certain agreements can only be concluded in the form of contracts according to the procedure defined by the Constitution. . .
. Initially, most judges and scholars consider that executive agreements based exclusively on the power of the president have not become the “law of the land” under the supremacy clause, because such agreements are not “treaties” ratified by the Senate.490 The Supreme Court has, however, found another basis for anticipating state laws through executive agreements. Ultimately, the transfer of the power of external relations through the Constitution to the national government. La Paquete Habana, 175 U.P. 677, 700 (1900). See z.B. also Galo-Garcia v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 86 F.3d 916 (9th cir. . .