Dictum in Garamendi acknowledges some of the issues that may be raised about Zschernig. The Zschernig court did not determine which language in the Constitution and commentators have determined that a respectable argument can be made that the Constitution does not require general action to prevent foreign policy not related to the supremacy clause, and broader than and independently of the specific prohibitions of the Constitution510 and the granting of power.511 The Garamendi Court raised “a fair question of whether respect for executive external relations required a categorical choice between the opposing theories of the field. and the conflicts that arise in Zschernig`s expertise. Instead, Justice Souter told the Court, a pre-purchase opportunity on the ground might be appropriate if a state legislates “simply without claiming a foreign policy without seriously claiming traditional state responsibility,” and the pre-purchase conditions of conflict could be appropriate when a state legislates in a traditional area of responsibility , “but in a way that influences external relations.” 512 We must wait for further litigation to ascertain whether the Court applies this distinction.513 Many types of executive agreements include the ordinary daily diary of the diplomatic mill. These include . B for minor territorial adjustments, border corrections, border surveillance, regulation of fishing rights, requests for private money against another government or its nationals, “simple private rights of sovereignty.” 467 Crandall lists a large number of such agreements with other governments with the president`s permission468. In addition, there are diplomatic arrangements as old as the `protocol`, which marks a step in the negotiation of a treaty, and the modus vivendi, which is to serve as a temporary substitute for a contract. Executive agreements are of constitutional importance if they are a determining factor for the future foreign policy and, therefore, for the fate of the country.