The Paris agreement was therefore not a single executive agreement in the traditional sense of the term, but an agreement approved by Congress, both by the former treaty and by the general legal pre-authorization. According to the Supreme Court`s decision in the case of Ladies and Moore v. Regan,175The Paris Agreement is a form of executive agreement of the Congress concluded under Category 1 of Youngstown: “The president acts in accordance with an express or tacit authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, because it encompasses everything he owns in his own right, as well as everything that Congress can delegate.” 176 Allowing the President alone to break an agreement supported by such a legislative authorization at the time of entry would run counter to the principle of the mirror by undermining the long-standing intent and approval of Congress for the agreement to mitigate the effects of climate change. See Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996, 1006 (1979) (Blackmun, J., partially derogatory) (“[I] f the President does not have the power to terminate the contract . . . . the intention to terminate certainly has no legal effect. »).
As long as the executive branch acts consistently in this particular area as part of the “general tone of the legislative framework of Congress” and there is “a history of congressional approval as the president” and “no sign to the contrary of legislative intent,” Congress has effectively left an authorized space for executive action in this particular area. In this space, the president has greater constitutional freedom to negotiate and conclude certain types of international agreements without obtaining prior and specific congressional approval. The Court thus seems to have recognized a fundamental truth: that Congress now expresses its adherence to international law in far more than three formal mechanisms. Second, in the case of the JCPOA, the need for participation in Congress is particularly great, given that the President does not exercise his own constitutional powers in plenary, but exercises the powers of congressional delegates on foreign trade to adapt sanctions in a event where the contractor appears to have fulfilled his international obligations. Congress could no doubt revoke its delegation and use its trading power to deny the reinstatement of economic sanctions against Iran, despite Mr. Trump`s decision to step down, on the grounds that he sees no basis for an executive retaliation allegation.194 Or if he wants, as Trump claims, a better deal with Iran, Congress could waive its legal right to waive sanctions in that framework. , withdraw completely and require – as a precondition for the approval of any new agreement concerning Iran – a commitment by the President to denounce the agreement only in accordance with the procedures prescribed by Congress or to withdraw it from that agreement, which could include certain types of notification, consultation and participation of Congress. Now that the House of Representatives is under opposition control after the mid-November 2018 elections, one or both houses of Congress could now, under the mirror principle, assert a constitutional right to reconsider and participate in the decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement before it becomes final.195 The mere fact that the President was able to unilaterally terminate agreements that did not affect Congress.
, tells us little about what would happen if Congress were to actively run. withdrawal, as in the example of NATO discussed above. In fact, Goldwater`s letters of appeal debated it, 63 It is true that the Supreme Court has sometimes recognized “historical practice” as the basis for a normative reinterpretation of structural constitutional provisions.64 However, as Pointed out by Justice De Frankfurt`s famous debate on historical practice in Youngstown, “systematic, uninterrupted, executive practice” places a historical “splendour” on the executive in Article II. only if, as prejudicial property in property law65, this practice has been pursued for a long time to the knowledge of Congress and has never been questioned before.