“This agreement enters into force on the date when the parties made it known in writing, through the diplomatic channel, that they had fulfilled their constitutional conditions for entry into force. This agreement remains in effect until 180 days from the date when one party informs the other party in writing that it wishes to terminate the contract. BERNAS. Yes, it is forward-looking because it does not affect the validity of this agreement. However, should a decision on the invalidy of this agreement be made, it will take effect immediately before 1991. At the same time, the “larger, even smaller” doctrine is that the discretion not to include us in a treaty has room for appreciation in cancelling it; Unlike the U.S. Constitution, exclusive treaties and executive agreements are equal because they are subject to the same restrictions. As early as 1870, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a treaty could not amend or validate the Constitution if it violated that instrument. 82 In Missouri v. Holland83, it was established that treaties should not be unconstitutional.84 The U.S. Supreme Court also considered constitutional restrictions on treaty power in Reid v.
85, where Justice Black ruled that an agreement with a foreign nation could empower Congress or any other branch of government exempt from constitutional restrictions. 86 He concluded that the U.S. Constitution restricted the actions of the president, the joint action of the president and the Senate, and thus the treaty of organization of power.87 By constitutional fiat and by the intrinsics of his office, the president, as head of state, is the only body and authority in the country`s foreign affairs. In many ways, the president is the principal architect of the foreign policy of nations; its “dominance in the field of external relations is (then) granted.” 51 With great force influence, his behavior in the external affairs of the nation, as Jefferson describes it, is “total executive.” 52 The Agreement on Enhanced Defence Cooperation (EDCA), signed in April 2014 under then-President Benigno Aquino III, aims to operationalize the VFA. Military activities authorized by the Philippines are also insinuated in the context of the VFA. The executive agreement provides for an increased military turnover of U.S. troops, aircraft and ships in the Philippines and allows them greater access to military bases in the country. While this is questionable, if exclusive executive agreements can take over from inconsistent federal laws, proponents of exclusive executive agreements interpret the Pink case in such a way that they are treated as a single contract, given that the status of “country law” has been granted to them under the supremacy clause and Litvinov`s award has been recognized as having a dignity similar to that of a contract.77 It is indicated that a single executive agreement may trigger an earlier contract. Indeed, the treaties of the United States have been repeatedly terminated by the President on his own.78 President Roosevelt, under its independent constitutional powers, has terminated at least two contracts: the extradition treaty with Greece in 1933 and the trade and maritime treaty with Japan in 1939.79 The fact that exclusive executive agreements can cancel or terminate a contract is recognized in Charlton/implicitly.