Some commentators have argued that the termination of contracts is analogous to the termination of federal laws.197 Since national statutes can only be terminated by the same process in which they were adopted198 – that is, by a majority vote in both chambers and with the signature of the president or the annulment of the veto – these commentators argue that contracts must also be terminated by procedure, 199 First, most judges and scholars have held that executive agreements based exclusively on the power of the president have not become the “law of the land” under the supremacy clause, because these agreements are not “treaties” ratified by the Senate.490 that the laws of the state should be anticipated by executive agreements. Ultimately, the transfer of the power of external relations through the Constitution to the national government. Yoo, Laws as Treaties? : The Constitutionality of Congressional Executive Agreements, 99 me. L. Rev. 757, 852 (2001) (arguing that treaties are the form required by the Constitution for the approval by Congress of an international agreement relating to acts which do not fall within the constitutional competence of the Congress, including matters relating to human rights, political/military alliances and arms control, but are not necessary for the conclusion of agreements on measures falling within the competence of congress under Article I. of the Constitution, as for example. Β Agreement on International Trade); with third restatement, supra Note 1, § 303 n.8 (“At one point it was argued that some agreements can only be concluded in the form of contracts according to the procedure defined by the Constitution. . . .