The controversy surrounds the president`s legal authority to make executive arrangements. The practice of unilateral presidential agreements with foreign nations contradicts the constitutional emphasis on joint decision-making and the drafters` understanding of the scope and extent of treaty power, which Hamilton described in a letter under the pseudonym “Camillus” as “competent for all provisions that might require the requirements of domestic affairs”; competent for the preparation of treaties of alliance, commercial treaties, peace treaties and any other type of convention common to nations. And that is why it was so carefully guarded; the cooperation of two-thirds of the Senate with the President, who is required to conclude any treaty. The text of the Constitution does not mention executive agreements. Rev. 1573, 1661 (2007) (arguing that the text and legislative history of the Constitution support the position that treaties and executive agreements are not interchangeable, and also arguing that the supremacy clause should be understood as generally preventing exclusive executive agreements from prevailing over existing law); Laurence H. Tribe, Taking Text and Structure Serious: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1221, 1249-67 (1995) (arguing that the contractual clause is the exclusive means for Congress to approve major international agreements); John C.
Yoo, Laws as Treaties?: The Constitutionality of Congressional-Executive Agreements, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 757, 852 (2001) (on the grounds that treaties are the constitutionally required form for congressional approval of an international agreement concerning measures outside the constitutional powers of Congress, including matters relating to human rights, political-military alliances and arms control, but are not necessary for agreements on measures that fall within the powers of Congress under Art. . . .