"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"
Crystal clear.
Among that body of law are existing tax rates, which are currently over 15% for corporations. Under the Constitution, the President must agree to changes in tax rates unless their veto is overridden.
You're right that Congress theoretically could violate the agreement, but in practice, it's almost irrelevant. They could theoretically pass a bill tomorrow that eliminates every tax and every law in the U.S.
The United States Constitution is not "only a framework".
As further examples of my point, beyond the laws, legal precedents, customs, and institutions mentioned above: None of the executive branch departments (State, Justice, Defense, Treasury, etc.) are mentioned in the Constitution. No federal court besides the Supreme Court is mentioned. Even specific laws are only loosely defined; for freedom of speech, no provision is made for slander, fraud, harassment, government secrets, etc.; for the right to bear arms, nothing defines what 'arms' are (and I don't suggest we try to define them here). The filibuster and other Congressional rules are not defined. Etc.
Let's reiterate:
> Here's what it says in the Constitution:
> "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"
> Crystal clear.
Anything that is not explicitly defined in the Constitution is certainly left up to the interpretation and decisions (within their constitutional authorizations) of the three branches of government.
However, anything that is explicit in the constitution cannot be overturned without a constitutional amendment.
Hopefully that clears things up for you.
Based on experience in Internet forums, I believe we either need to be in a 'curious state' or the conversation isn't worthwhile - in fact, it's a negative - and I think when someone says 'Exactly Zero' of my comment has value, they aren't curious.
dang describes a 'curious state' very well:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury speaks for the President; it's a fundamental dynamic of organizations. Otherwise, effectively Yellen wouldn't be Treasury Secretary - Yellen would be powerless and meaningless - and would resign or be fired. Only Trump seemed to ignore this and undermine the people under him. Also, I expect that the Treasury Secretary has great legal authority to make binding decisions for the U.S. government; remember that the American people decided the cabinet members would be separately confirmed by Congress (i.e., the Senate), per the Constitution.
Similarly, if the CFO of Apple makes an agreement, the counter-party assumes they speak for CEO Tim Cook. Otherwise, why talk to this person?
> Treaties in the US require a super-majority (two thirds) vote in the Senate.
Most international agreements are not treaties. The people of the U.S. delegate the power to conduct foreign affairs almost exclusively to the President, again in the Constitution. Only certain actions, such as treaties, require Congressional approval.