Another view seemed to be the basis of the Supreme Court`s decision in the United States. Belmont,491 gives effect to Litvinov`s allocation. The opinion of Sutherland J.A. was based on his curtiss-Wright492 opinion. A first instance would have erred in dismissing a complaint filed by the United States as an agent of the Soviet Union for certain funds formerly held by a Russian metallurgical group whose assets had been acquired by the Soviet government. The President`s act in recognizing the Soviet government and the agreements that accompany it represented an international pact that the president, as the „only body“ of international relations for the United States, could enter without consulting the Senate. State laws and policies have also made no difference in such a situation; While the supremacy of treaties is explicitly defined by the Constitution, the same rule applies „in the case of all international pacts and agreements, that full power over international affairs belongs to the national government and cannot and cannot be subject to circumcision or interference by individual states.“ 493 The treaty clause – Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution – gives the President the power to enter into contracts and acts with „advice and approval“ of the Senate. 21 Many scholars have concluded that the Framers intend to be „advice“ and „consent“ as separate aspects of the contracting process.22 23 President George Washington seems to have understood that the Senate had such an advisory role,24 but he and other early presidents quickly refused to obtain the Senate`s contribution during the negotiation process.25 26 Recently, some foreign relations experts have argued that the international agreement has developed in such a way that some modern executive agreements no longer fit into the three generally accepted categories of executive agreements.69 These scholars argue that some recent executive agreements were not based on a defined source of presidential authority, as an individual status or an autonomous claim to constitutional authority.70 which argues that the identification of a specific authority status or constitutional power is not necessary if the President already has the national authority to implement the executive agreement; The agreement does not require any changes to national legislation; 71 Opponents of this proposed new paradigm of the executive agreement argue that it is not compatible with the principles of separation of powers, which they believe require the President to authorize the conclusion of international agreements either by the Constitution, by a ratified treaty or by an act of Congress.