Final answer:
The answer is false.
The statement that a sole executive agreement is likely to be in effect longer than a treaty is false. Treaties, requiring a rigorous consent process, are more stable, while a sole executive agreement can be readily reversed by a subsequent President.
Step-by-step explanation:
In response to the question of whether a sole executive agreement is likely to be in effect longer than a treaty, the answer is false. According to the constitutional process in the United States, while a treaty is negotiated by the President and then must be consented to by a supermajority in the Senate (two-thirds vote), sole executive agreements are made solely at the behest of the President without requiring Senate approval.
This means that while treaties are harder to enact, they are also more difficult to overturn, as they require another formal process involving the Senate. In contrast, a sole executive agreement can be more easily reversed by a succeeding President, as seen in the case of the Iran Nuclear Agreement that sparked significant debate over its form and longevity.