In addition, there are many collections of free online contracts that focus on a particular jurisdiction, region or conditions. Depending on the type of contract you are researching, it may be quicker to use one of these online contract collections as a starting point rather than following the conventional four-step contract search process. This is particularly the case with major multilateral treaties and certain types of bilateral agreements, particularly bilateral investment agreements. See Reid v. Hidden, 354 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1957) (response to the diktat in Holland) stating that the power of the treaty is subject to certain constitutional constraints; Bond v. United States, 134 pp. Ct. 2077, 2098 (2014) (Scalia, J. concordant in judgment) (with Thomas, J.) (Holland`s interpretation of the necessary and correct clause is an “unreasonable and unpretitional sentence” that is not supported by the text or structure of the Constitution); Nicholas Quinn Rosary, Executing the Treaty Power, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 1867, 1868 (2005) (on the basis of the Dutch interpretation of the necessary and correct clause, “is false and the case should be overturned”).

In the 1950s, under the leadership of Senator John Bricker of Ohio, there was an attempt to limit the extent of contractual power described in Holland by amending the Constitution. A version of the proposed amendment, known as the Bricker Amendment, would have provided that a “treaty as domestic law in the United States would come into force only through legislation that would be valid in the absence of a treaty.” See S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 83rd Cong., Proposals to Mend the Treaty-Making Provisions of the Constitution: Views of Deans and Professors of Law 3 (1953). No version of the Bricker amendment has ever been adopted. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly give a president the power to enter into executive agreements. However, it may be authorized to do so by Congress or may do so on the basis of its foreign relations management authority. Despite questions about the constitutionality of executive agreements, the Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that they had the same force as treaties.

As executive agreements are made on the authority of the president-in-office, they do not necessarily bind his successors. Compare Bradford C. Clark, Domesticating Sole Executive Agreements, 93 Va. L. Rev. 1573, 1661 (2007) (arguing that the text and history of the Constitution support the position that treaties and executive agreements are not interchangeable, and also argue that the supreme clause should be read in order to avoid, in general, exclusive executive agreements being contrary to existing legislation); Laurence H. Tribe, Taking Text and Structure Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1221, 1249-67 (1995) (on the grounds that the contractual clause is the exclusive means for Congress to approve important international agreements); John C. Yoo, Laws as Treaties?: The Constitutionality of Congressional Executive Agreements, 99 Me.

L. Rev. 757, 852 (2001) (on the grounds that treaties are the constitutional form required for Congress to approve an international agreement on measures outside the constitutional powers of Congress, including human rights, political/military alliances and arms control issues, but are not necessary for agreements of measures within the competence of Congress, such as the International Trade Agreement. B). With third restatement, see 1, 303 n.8 (“Previously, it was argued that certain agreements could only be concluded in the form of contracts under the constitutional procedure. The scientific opinion rejected this view.” Henkin, supra note 22, to 217 (“Whatever its theoretical virtues, it is now widely accepted that the Executive Convention of Congress is available for general use, even for general use, and is a complete alternative to a contract.