Why, according to this argument, should presidents follow the slow and cumbersome consultation and approval process of the treaty, when their political objectives can be more easily achieved by the implementation of executive agreements of Congress that are not limited in a similar way? Footnote 9 Finally, the president`s approval can be given as a whole and ex ante by simple majority approval, allowing the president to conclude a large number of agreements that have been approved under a single law of Congress. Footnote 10 When we see that treaties are being used today, this report proposes, it is for orthogonal reasons adapted to the quality of the instrument itself, such as historical conventions or selective Senate preferences. Footnote 11 A second hypothesis on some of these restrictions is that the treaty`s high legislative barriers help to address engagement issues arising from executive rotation. They argue that strong legislative support, implicit in the treaty mechanism, reassures negotiating partners that the United States will likely work together in the long term, even if administrations change. Footnote 55 This rationale is based on the assumption that senators` preferences are more stable than the preferences of the Speaker, for example because the Senate represents a broader consensus among the voting population, less sensitive to political shocks, footnote 56 or because senators serve longer terms and avoid changing positions to avoid being considered fluctuating. Footnote 57 This would allow other countries to rely more on a treaty promise. Now let`s look at the case of executive agreements alone. As noted above, the TIF does not distinguish between the executive agreements of Congress, although the estimated share of the first agreements is between 5 and 6% of all agreements. To take into account the fact that some international instruments are exclusive executive agreements that should be excluded from the analysis, this study uses a sensitivity analysis. Footnote 102 Although a majority of Bond refused to reconsider the interpretation of the tenth amendment of Holland148, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the accused on the basis of principles of legal interpretation.149 When interpreting a statute interpreting a treaty, Bond stated: « It is appropriate to refer to the fundamental principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution to resolve ambiguities. 150 Applying these principles, the Issuing Court found that Congress did not intend to enter areas of traditional state authority, that the Chemical Weapons Convention did not apply to the actions of the commercial spouse.151 In other words, the majority of Bond did not express concern about Hollande`s conclusion that the Tenth Amendment did not restrict The power of Congress to pass legislation on the implementation of contracts. But Bond was how the principles of federalism, reflected in the Tenth Amendment, can dictate the interpretation of such statutes of application.152 Many scholars are skeptical of the usefulness of having two apparently similar political instruments for concluding international agreements, most of which are criticisms directed at the treaty because of its alleged inflexibility and insignificance.