Posted on 09/13/2011 10:47:50 AM PDT by IndePundit
The city of Jerusalem has been fought over for nearly 3,000 years and remains one of the most contentious places on Earth. This fall, the battle will reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case—Zivotofsky v. Clinton, brought by the parents of Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem on October 17, 2002—involves a 2002 effort by Congress to force U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It sought to do so by, among other things, requiring the State Department to identify Israel as the place of birth on passports issued to U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem.
The high court must decide two things: whether the case presents a "political question," which would prevent the court from ruling on it; and, if the court can rule, whether the Constitution allows Congress to require the State Department to identify Jerusalem as part of Israel.
The answer to the second question is clearly no. The president is the nation's "sole organ" (Chief Justice John Marshall's phrase) in foreign affairs. The Constitution gives him sole authority to "receive Ambassadors and other public ministers" and since George Washington's presidency this authority has been understood to include the right to grant or withhold U.S. recognition of a foreign state's existence, government and territorial extent. Neither Congress nor the courts can direct the president to exercise this authority in any particular manner.
The U.S. first recognized Israel on May 14, 1948, and American policy since has been that the status of Jerusalem can be determined only as part of a broader Middle East peace agreement. Congress directly challenged this policy with the United States Policy with Respect to Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel Act of 2002.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
ISRAEL IS FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!
...a 2002 effort by Congress to force U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital...
This is a unique case and one that does, as Rivkin puts it, “present a clear and open clash between the political branches on a subject constitutionally committed to the executive.” It’s good to know that Rivkin is consistent in his defense of the Constitution.
Rivkin is probably right. I can’t see the Supreme Court treating this case as anything other than a political question. I can understand Judge Edwards’ point, but this case is too unique really for the courts to try anything funny here.
This is clearly one of the cases where the president should have more say, that’s what makes the case so interesting—it’s an anomaly that the Supremes really need to decide. We’ve been consistent on the Jerusalem issue, as Rivkin duly notes.
Interesting that all this is going on as the Dems try to rescue the Jewish vote. That was a huge blow for Obama the other night in NY. It does seem that overall Congress has the edge over the President when it comes to foreign affairs. Rightfully so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.