WRIGHT— NATURE OF FOREIGN RELATIONS POWER. 109 



the declaration of war, and the power to meet international re- 

 sponsibilities, all of which are here included under the general 

 term, the foreign relations power. 



For this difficulty several reasons may be assigned, as for 

 instance, vagueness in the terms of the constitution on this subject, 

 inconsistency in the interpretations acted upon by the political 

 organs of government at different periods of history, and the 

 comparative lack of judicial interpretation, due to the tendency of 

 the courts to regard questions involving foreign relations as political 

 and so beyond their consideration.^ There is, however, a more 

 fundamental reason for this difficulty, a reason which lies back 

 of those mentioned and which explains the existence of a similar 

 difficulty in all other constitutional states. This reason is the 

 dual position necessarily occupied by the authority controlling 

 foreign relations. 



2. Dual Position of Foreign Relations Power. 



This authority is on the one hand an agency of the national 

 constitution. It is created by that instrument and subject to all 

 the limitations of pow^r and procedure therein expressed or im- 

 plied. But on the other hand it is the representative of the nation 

 before other nations and is expected by them to meet international 

 responsibilities according to the standard of international law and 

 treaty. Thus its activity is governed at the same time by constitu- 

 tional law and international law, its powers by one, its responsibili- 

 ties by the other. Conflicts may occur in the application of these 

 two laws. For example, international law requires that all validly 

 concluded treaties be executed, but constitutional law may make 

 it difficult if not impossible to execute particular treaty provisions 

 because of certain constitutional limitations. This problem has 

 arisen in the United States in connection with the police power of 

 the states and the exclusive power of Congress to appropriate 

 money. It has been alleged that under constitutional law the 

 states and congress are entitled to an unlimited discretion in exer- 

 cising these powers irrespective of treaty provisions.^ Commentators 

 have differed in their views as to the scope of the powers belonging 



1 Infra, sees. 107, 247. 



2 Infra, sees. 50, 59. 



