A total victory of the United Nations and the unconditional capitulation of the Axis powers would eliminate any need for such a peace conference, as it took place at Versailles after the end of the last war, and any need to sign peace agreements with Germany, Italy or Japan. Post-war arrangements, both political and economic, can be developed by the United Nations alone. In order to be binding on the United States, such agreements, if concluded in the form of executive agreements, might not be subject to the legislature at all; It would only need the approval of simple majorities in both houses of Congress. Second, while it is generally accepted that, pursuant to the “executive power” clause, the President has the power to enter into single executive agreements that are not inconsistent with legislation in areas where the primary responsibility rests with Congress, the question arises as to whether the President may enter into an agreement alone that is inconsistent with an act of Congress, or alternatively, whether a single executive agreement can replace previous inconsistent laws of Congress. The prevailing view, rooted in the belief that it would be ruthless to repeal an act of Congress for an act of a single person – the president – is that the only executive agreements in the United States are ineffective as law, insofar as they conflict with an earlier act of Congress in an area of competence in Congress. This is the position taken by a federal appeals court in the United States against Guy W. Capps, Inc.