Zschernig has rested for some time and, although he was recently mentioned by the Court of Justice, he remains the only holding company in which the Court has used a dormant external relations force to repress state law. This recognition of the pre-emptive scope of executive agreements was part of the movement for a constitutional amendment in the 1950s to limit the president`s powers in this area, but this move failed.496 The law governing U.S. foreign policy recognizes three mechanisms through which the United States makes binding international commitments. The term “treaty” is used in a more limited legal sense than that of international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from agreements between Congress and the executive and executive agreements.  All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they differ only from the point of view of the domestic law of the United States. The differences between the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by the normal legislative procedure or by the president alone. The contractual clause authorizes the President to enter into or enter into contracts only with the “Council and approval” of at least two-thirds of the Senate. On the other hand, normal legislation becomes law after the approval of simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and the signature of the president. The Executive Agreement has achieved its modern development as a foreign policy instrument led by President Franklin D.
Roosevelt and has sometimes threatened to replace the treaty-making power not formally, but in fact as a determining element in the field of foreign policy. . . .