Executive agreements offer both the president and Congress a more efficient way to conduct international affairs. The expansion of executive power has been referred to pejoratively as the rise of the 'imperial presidency'. In foreign relations, presidents have exercised a growing independence through the use of executive agreements. The U.S. Constitution specifies that two-thirds of the Senate must ratify a proposed treaty and makes no provision for other forms of international agreements. In 1942, however, the Supreme Court affirmed the legality of executive agreements; and since WWII, they have outnumbered treaties by more than ten to one.Are presidents trampling the Constitution or seeking to streamline the diplomatic process? Glen S. Krutz and Jeffrey S. Peake argue that the preference for executive agreements is the result of a symbiotic evolution of the executive and the legislative branches. In order for the United States to survive in a complex, ever-changing global environment and maintain its world power status, it must complete international commitments swiftly and confidently. Members of Congress concur that executive agreements allow each branch to function more effectively. At the same time, the House continues to oversee particular policy areas; and presidents still submit the majority of the most significant international commitments to the Senate as treaties. Rather than an assault on the balance of power, Krutz and Peake conclude, executive agreements represent a mutual adaptation of the executive and the legislature in a system of shared power.
