The Senate approved the ratification of one of the most controversial treaties in U.S. history during the Washington administration. At the insistence of the federalist senators, the President sent Supreme Justice John Jay to London to settle open disputes with Britain. Washington did not consult with the entire Senate before seeking its opinion and approval of the treaty, known as “Jay.” Opponents of the treaty, particularly Jeffersonian Republicans, supported New York Senator Aaron Burr to reopen negotiations after a series of specific proposals, but federal senators proposed the plan, ensuring approval of Jay`s controversial treaty on June 24, 1795. , but finally funds the House of Representatives on April 30, 1796, with a short lead. It was a decisive victory for the unique and decisive role of the Senate in contracting. Some experts in international law have sometimes criticized the fact that the Senate can legitimize certain reservations, 36 And scientists debate whether some or all of the provisions of a treaty are not carried out on their own (i.e., require that implementing laws have enforceable internal legal value) are constitutionally admissible.37 Presidents have also entered into international agreements through congressional executive agreements that are ratified by a majority of the two. Houses of Congress. , or by executive agreements concluded by the President alone in the exercise of his constitutional executive powers.  Although the Constitution does not explicitly provide an alternative to the Article II contractual procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, distinguishes treaties (which cannot be concluded by states) and agreements (which states can enter into with the agreement of Congress).  The Supreme Court has found the executive and executive conventions of Congress to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history.
Thomas Jefferson stated that the procedure provided for by Article II of the treaty was not necessary if there was no long-term commitment: many types of executive agreements are the usual daily confrontation with the diplomatic mill. These include . B for minor territorial adjustments, border corrections, border surveillance, regulation of fishing rights, requests for private money against another government or its nationals, “simple private rights of sovereignty.” 467 Crandall lists a large number of such agreements with other governments with the president`s permission468. In addition, there are diplomatic arrangements as old as the `protocol`, which marks a step in the negotiation of a treaty, and the modus vivendi, which is to serve as a temporary substitute for a contract.