Subsequent cases have established that the power to enter into contracts with Indian tribes, with the power to enter into contracts with foreign nations, was coextensive427 that states were incompetent to interfere in the rights created by these treaties428, that as long as the United States recognized the national character of a tribe, its members were under the protection of the treaties and laws of Congress and their property was immunized against state imposition. „429 that a provision of an Indian treaty prohibiting the introduction of spirit drinks into the territory of India was effective without legislation and binding on the courts, although the area was in an organized county of a state,430 and an act of Congress, contrary to an earlier Indian treaty, resendued it.431 First, it was the opinion of most judges and scholars. 431 of the Supremacy Clause, because such agreements are not „treaties“ ratified by the Senate. 490 The Supreme Court, however, has found another basis for compliance with state laws, which are anticipated by executive agreements, ultimately relying on the disregard for foreign policy power within the national government. However, the definition of the general principle is only the beginning; there is no easily agreed standard for limiting. The most insistent proposal within the limit was that the power of the treaty should not be allowed to penetrate the reserved powers of states. It is hardly surprising that this argument has not prevailed. 387 Nevertheless, within the scope of Congress` power to comply with the necessary and correct clause of respecting a treaty on a subject that is probably within the jurisdiction of states, the question was not raised until 1920, when the Court upheld a treaty and enforcement statute for the protection of migratory birds.388 found in the Constitution. The question is whether it is prohibited by invisible radiation from the general provisions of the Tenth Amendment.
389 The center of the enterprise followed. „This is an almost first-rate national interest. It can only be protected by national measures, in coordination with that of another power. The object is only temporary within the state and has no permanent habitat inside. But for the treaty and the status, there could soon be no more birds to deal with. We see nothing in the Constitution that requires the government to maintain itself, while the food supply is cut off and the protectors of our forests and crops are destroyed. 390 Most executive agreements were concluded on the basis of a contract or an act of Congress. However, presidents have sometimes reached executive agreements to achieve goals that would not find the support of two-thirds of the Senate.