US Supreme Court strikes down 'born in Jerusalem' passport law

[webfact]

Supreme Court strikes down 'born in Jerusalem' passport law
By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Siding with the White House in a foreign-policy power struggle with Congress, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Americans born in the disputed city of Jerusalem can't list Israel as their birthplace on passports.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court said Congress overstepped its bounds when it approved the passport law in 2002. The case mixed a dispute between Congress and the president with the thorny politics of the volatile Middle East.

The ruling ended a 12-year-old lawsuit by a Jerusalem-born American, Menachem Zivotofsky, and his U.S.-citizen parents.

The law the court struck down Monday would have forced the State Department to alter its long-standing policy of not listing Israel as the birthplace for Jerusalem-born Americans. The policy is part of the government's refusal to recognize any nation's sovereignty over Jerusalem until Israelis and Palestinians resolve its status through negotiations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that the president has the exclusive power to recognize foreign nations, and that determining what a passport says is part of that power.

"Put simply, the nation must have a single policy regarding which governments are legitimate in the eyes of the United States and which are not," Kennedy wrote. "Recognition is a topic on which the nation must speak with one voice. That voice must be the president's."

Justice Antonin Scalia challenged Kennedy's analysis in a vigorous dissent that Scalia summarized from the bench. "Who says so?" Scalia said. "The text and structure of the Constitution divide responsibility for foreign policy." Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the dissent.

In a separate opinion, Roberts cast the court's decision as dangerously groundbreaking. "The court takes the perilous step — for the first time in our history — of allowing the president to defy an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs," he wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but on narrower grounds.

Robert Reinstein, the former dean of the Temple University law school, said the decision was significant because the court held for the first time that the president has exclusive power in an area of foreign affairs — recognizing foreign governments — even though the Constitution does not explicitly say so. On the other hand, Reinstein said, Kennedy went out of his way to say Congress retains substantial authority in providing money for embassies, imposing restrictions on trade and refusing to ratify treaties.

Saeb Erekat, a senior Palestinian official, said the ruling was a "very important decision."

"It is a clear message to the Israeli government that its decisions and measures in occupying and annexing Jerusalem are illegal and void and that it should immediately stop these measures because it's a clear violation of the international law," Erekat said.

Israel's government declined to comment. Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said Israel does not comment on rulings by foreign courts.

The court's consideration of the case has coincided with acute Palestinian-Israeli tension over Jerusalem and strain in Israeli-American relations, highlighted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's criticism of the U.S. role in international negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. President Barack Obama has said he remains unconvinced by Netanyahu's efforts to clarify statements the prime minister made during his campaign for re-election that rejected creation of a Palestinian state.

The status of Jerusalem has for decades been among the most vexing issues in Israeli-Palestinian relations. Israel has controlled all of Jerusalem since the Six-Day War in 1967 and has proclaimed a united Jerusalem as its eternal capital. The Palestinians have declared that east Jerusalem will be the capital of their independent state.

Indeed, Kennedy opened his opinion by noting the tensions that surround the status of Jerusalem. "A delicate subject lies in the background of this case. That subject is Jerusalem," he said.

In the voting breakdown, the court's four liberals, including the three Jewish justices, joined Kennedy's opinion that sided with the administration and against the Zivotofskys.

U.S. policy has long refrained from recognizing any nation's sovereignty over Jerusalem and has held that the city's status should be resolved through negotiations between the parties. Congress has for years tried to push administrations of both parties to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The U.S. has never enforced the passport law, which has been on the books since 2002.

President George W. Bush signed the 2002 provisions into law but noted that "U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed." Obama has taken the same stance.

Reacting to the ruling, Alyza Lewin, who argued the case for the family, said the decision "highlights the central fallacy" of U.S. policy on Jerusalem. "Presidents have been permitted by American public opinion to maintain, as American foreign policy, the absurd position that no country is sovereign over Jerusalem, and that no part of the city, including the western portion of Jerusalem, is in Israel," Lewin said.

State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said the decision simply confirmed the president's longstanding authority in foreign affairs and added, "We remain committed" to the policy on the neutrality of Jerusalem.

The justices had Zivotofsky's case before them once before. In 2012, the court rejected lower-court decisions that called the matter a political issue that should be resolved by Congress and the president without the help of the courts.

The federal appeals court in Washington then struck down the law.
___

Associated Press writers Josef Federman and Aron Heller in Jerusalem contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-09

[Jingthing]

This was a case about presidential powers.

That was decided in the case and I would agree with the decision that the president (any president) does have the power used in this Jerusalem recognition case.

While the case was clearly brought to push the Jerusalem recognition issue, it could have been about any disputed foreign real estate.

One can easily support Israel's claim to Jerusalem and ALSO support this supreme court decision.

Israel still makes the claim.

The current status of U.S. presidential powers over foreign recognition stands.

In that sense, it is a major court decision for presidential powers.

For the future of Israel, not really very significant.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Jingthing

[Scott]

If someone is born in Jerusalem, what country, if any, are they listed as having been born in?

[ezzra]

Those people, who call themselves Palestinians now, went to sleep Jordanian citizens on the 4th

of June 1967, and woke up Palestinians on the following morning the 5th of June 1967,

where were they all those years not wanting or asking for a Palestinians state?

where were day all those years not wanting or asking for Jerusalem to be recognized

as their capitol?

East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control for many years, while the west side was under

Israeli control, what makes now Jerusalem to be the capitol of the Palestinians people and

and where it their lineage and connection to this city?

And while Jerusalem is mentioned 238 times in the old testament, it's no where to be found

even once in the Quran....

I can on and on, but decision by the US supreme court is myopic and a regrettable one....

Edited June 9, 2015 by ezzra

[Seastallion]

I think you are right, JT, that the case was clearly brought to push the Jerusalem recognition issue.

I'm glad the three Jewish judges did not side with Zivotofsky as it was clearly the right thing to do, and I am glad Zivotofsky wasted a lot of money on what was essentially a frivolous suit. He should keep his Zionist politics out of American politics.

[Seastallion]

If someone is born in Jerusalem, what country, if any, are they listed as having been born in?

What of a child born of US parents in one of the settlements?

Zivotofsky's lawyer's argument implies western Jerusalem, at least, should be deemed Israel. She has a point, but one that I doubt pro-Israeli expansionists would like to make because it concedes that there is an argument over East Jerusalem. They would prefer to act as if it is a matter of course that all of Jerusalem is Israeli.

[MadDog2020]

The answer is a single state. If the Palestinians want to be part of the solution then work within the political parties and the existing government. Remember the Civil War in the USA. Same concept.

[geriatrickid]

Alright, so the place of birth will read Jerusalem and not Israel. Not that much a biggie. What is though, is the manner in which the case argued. It's a major slap in the face for the politicians who wish to expand congressional power when they don't like a particular president. They just got a big smack down.

"The power to recognize or decline to recognize a foreign state and its territorial bounds resides in the president alone," Kennedy said, citing examples from the French Revolution in 1793 to President Jimmy Carter's recognition of the People's Republic of China in 1979.

"Recognition is an act with immediate and powerful significance for international relations, so the president's position must be clear. Congress cannot require him to contradict his own statement regarding a determination of formal recognition." Citations were also made of colonial revolts in South America, revolutions in Texas and Russia – and the president’s many powers in foreign policy, including naming ambassadors and brokering treaties,“Congress, by contrast, has no constitutional power that would enable it to initiate diplomatic relations with a foreign nation,” he wrote, adding: “Put simply, the nation must have a single policy regarding which governments are legitimate in the eyes of the United States and which are not.” Kennedy said Congress retains ways to regulate the president’s powers but framed the decision as a victory for separation of powers.

This is certainly one of the most important decisions of the past few years as it defines the breadth and scope of presidential power.

[stevenl]

The answer is a single state. If the Palestinians want to be part of the solution then work within the political parties and the existing government. Remember the Civil War in the USA. Same concept.

This is not about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict but about us president/congress powers.

[MadDog2020]

The answer is a single state. If the Palestinians want to be part of the solution then work within the political parties and the existing government. Remember the Civil War in the USA. Same concept.

This is not about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict but about us president/congress powers.

Or a simplistic resolution of the basis for the case. Without the issue there would be no case and therefore no reason for any Supreme Court ruling.

[Jingthing]

The Supreme Court did NOT rule on the Palestinian - Israel issue. They have no such power to rule on that even if they wanted to. They ruled on United States presidential powers. End of.

[Jingthing]

If someone is born in Jerusalem, what country, if any, are they listed as having been born in?

I assume it will just say Jerusalem.

I think people know where that is.

In the event of a change of the situation in Jersusalem and/or presidential decisions on this question, I see no reason why the wording can't be changed in future passports.

OK, I can see that someone with a passport like that might have a problem with some future visa applications if they're demanding a country be entered as well, particularly from countries that don't recognize Israel.

Oh well!

Edited June 9, 2015 by Jingthing

[gigman]

If someone is born in Jerusalem, what country, if any, are they listed as having been born in?

Palestine .......

[Jingthing]

This topic has absolutely nothing to do with a one state solution.

I know it must be annoying to Israel demonizers who are always itching for a chance to spin things into a "Israel is bad" theme, that the only thing this U.S. supreme court decision was about is U.S. presidential powers in foreign policy.

The justices did not rule against Israel and they did not rule for the Palestinians. They ruled that any U.S. president has the power to make the kinds of decisions reflected in the passport policy in question. Not just Jerusalem. Anywhere in the world where a similar decision might be made by any U.S. president.

In the unlikely event that the next U.S. president is someone like Cruz or Rubio, I would assume they would reverse the current Jerusalem policy rather quickly. That they will have that power is now backed up by this important supreme court decision about presidential powers.

That's an important function of the supreme court ... to provide interpretations of things that may not be entirely clear in the constitution, and this is such a case.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[Chicog]

Not strictly topic related, but since this is specifically about them not negotiating a settlement, I think this report is hard to ignore.

An added bonus would be that they wouldn't have to waste the Supreme Court's time on trivia like this.

Israelis and Palestinians would gain billions of pounds from making peace with each other, according to a study released yesterday.
Both would face daunting economic losses in the event of other alternatives, particularly a return to violence.
The Rand Corporation a US-based, non-profit, research organisation, interviewed about 200 officials from the region and elsewhere during more than two years of research into the costs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Its main finding was that following a peace agreement, Israel and Palestine stood to gain $170 billion (£111bn) over the course of a decade – the Israelis stood to gain $120bn and the Palestinians would gain $50bn, marking a 36 per cent rise in their average per capita income, the report said.
In contrast, the Israeli economy would lose some $250bn in lost economic opportunities with a return to violence, and the Palestinians would see their per-capita gross domestic product fall by as much as 46 per cent, the report said.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/israel-palestine-111bn-better-off-with-peace-1-3796398

[phrodan]

This topic has absolutely nothing to do with a one state solution.

I know it must be annoying to Israel demonizers who are always itching for a chance to spin things into a "Israel is bad" theme, that the only thing this U.S. supreme court decision was about is U.S. presidential powers in foreign policy.

The justices did not rule against Israel and they did not rule for the Palestinians. They ruled that any U.S. president has the power to make the kinds of decisions reflected in the passport policy in question. Not just Jerusalem. Anywhere in the world where a similar decision might be made by any U.S. president.

In the unlikely event that the next U.S. president is someone like Cruz or Rubio, I would assume they would reverse the current Jerusalem policy rather quickly. That they will have that power is now backed up by this important supreme court decision about presidential powers.

That's an important function of the supreme court ... to provide interpretations of things that may not be entirely clear in the constitution, and this is such a case.

It draws attention to the fact that successive US Presidents have refused to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel.

Which is a tad annoying for Zionists.

[dexterm]

This was a case about presidential powers.

That was decided in the case and I would agree with the decision that the president (any president) does have the power used in this Jerusalem recognition case.

While the case was clearly brought to push the Jerusalem recognition issue, it could have been about any disputed foreign real estate.

One can easily support Israel's claim to Jerusalem and ALSO support this supreme court decision.

Israel still makes the claim.

The current status of U.S. presidential powers over foreign recognition stands.

In that sense, it is a major court decision for presidential powers.

For the future of Israel, not really very significant.

This was a case about presidential powers.

It was also clearly not the intention of the original plaintiff Mr Menachem Zivotofsky to simply clear up the small matter of a confusing passport entry or to decide upon the limits of Presidential powers. He had his ulterior motives. Fortunately the Supreme Court has had the good sense to deny him the opportunity to misuse the court system to dictate his own foreign policy agenda.

Edited June 9, 2015 by dexterm

[ggold]

If someone is born in Jerusalem, what country, if any, are they listed as having been born in?

That would be Israel unless you are an American passport holder!

[ggold]

This topic has absolutely nothing to do with a one state solution.

I know it must be annoying to Israel demonizers who are always itching for a chance to spin things into a "Israel is bad" theme, that the only thing this U.S. supreme court decision was about is U.S. presidential powers in foreign policy.

The justices did not rule against Israel and they did not rule for the Palestinians. They ruled that any U.S. president has the power to make the kinds of decisions reflected in the passport policy in question. Not just Jerusalem. Anywhere in the world where a similar decision might be made by any U.S. president.

In the unlikely event that the next U.S. president is someone like Cruz or Rubio, I would assume they would reverse the current Jerusalem policy rather quickly. That they will have that power is now backed up by this important supreme court decision about presidential powers.

That's an important function of the supreme court ... to provide interpretations of things that may not be entirely clear in the constitution, and this is such a case.

It draws attention to the fact that successive US Presidents have refused to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel.

Which is a tad annoying for Zionists.

Not really true, Even America say Jerusalem should be a shared capitol. On that basis they should have allowed the Passport to show Jerusalem as being in Israel.

But this is about politics, and I would have to wonder if this was really an independent judgement or if some one directed the court to decide against?

[Jingthing]

No way. The supreme court is not directed by anyone. It actually wasn't a political case from the court's perspective. It was about constitutional powers.

The next president can change this policy if he wishes.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited June 9, 2015 by Jingthing

[lostoday]

This topic has absolutely nothing to do with a one state solution.

I know it must be annoying to Israel demonizers who are always itching for a chance to spin things into a "Israel is bad" theme, that the only thing this U.S. supreme court decision was about is U.S. presidential powers in foreign policy.

The justices did not rule against Israel and they did not rule for the Palestinians. They ruled that any U.S. president has the power to make the kinds of decisions reflected in the passport policy in question. Not just Jerusalem. Anywhere in the world where a similar decision might be made by any U.S. president.

In the unlikely event that the next U.S. president is someone like Cruz or Rubio, I would assume they would reverse the current Jerusalem policy rather quickly. That they will have that power is now backed up by this important supreme court decision about presidential powers.

That's an important function of the supreme court ... to provide interpretations of things that may not be entirely clear in the constitution, and this is such a case.

Supreme Court slam dunks the Israel lobby on Jerusalem, 6-3 (and Rubio, Oren, and Engel are angry)

Well, the Supreme Court slam-dunked the lobby. “A blow to the pro-Israel lobby,” Robert Siegel just said on National Public Radio. - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/supreme-israel-jerusalem#sthash.WUHVwr2D.dpuf

[phrodan]

This topic has absolutely nothing to do with a one state solution.

I know it must be annoying to Israel demonizers who are always itching for a chance to spin things into a "Israel is bad" theme, that the only thing this U.S. supreme court decision was about is U.S. presidential powers in foreign policy.

The justices did not rule against Israel and they did not rule for the Palestinians. They ruled that any U.S. president has the power to make the kinds of decisions reflected in the passport policy in question. Not just Jerusalem. Anywhere in the world where a similar decision might be made by any U.S. president.

In the unlikely event that the next U.S. president is someone like Cruz or Rubio, I would assume they would reverse the current Jerusalem policy rather quickly. That they will have that power is now backed up by this important supreme court decision about presidential powers.

That's an important function of the supreme court ... to provide interpretations of things that may not be entirely clear in the constitution, and this is such a case.

It draws attention to the fact that successive US Presidents have refused to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel.

Which is a tad annoying for Zionists.

Not really true, Even America say Jerusalem should be a shared capitol. On that basis they should have allowed the Passport to show Jerusalem as being in Israel.

But this is about politics, and I would have to wonder if this was really an independent judgement or if some one directed the court to decide against?

The first part is just sophistry.

The second part pathetic wittering - the Supreme Court brings down a judgment that doesn't suit the Zionists and your reaction? Some great power has nobbled the Supreme Court.

Grow up.

[Jingthing]

This doesn't change one little thing on the ground in Jerusalem. It does better define presidential powers.

Of course Israel demonizers will spin this as a great victory. Somehow I don't see how this brings their goal of ending Israel any closer.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited June 9, 2015 by Jingthing

[jdinasia]

This doesn't change one little thing on the ground in Jerusalem. It does better define presidential powers.

Of course Israel demonizers will spin this as a great victory. Somehow I don't see how this brings their goal of ending Israel any closer.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Every thing that restricts Israeli claims to more and more land affects life on the ground.

The Vatican recognizing Israel affects life on the ground. US decisions regarding passports issued to US citizens born in Jerusalem affects life on the ground.

The continued condemnation of settlements in occupied territory affects life on the ground.

Israel is continuing to isolate itself.

[Asheron]

This doesn't change one little thing on the ground in Jerusalem. It does better define presidential powers.

Of course Israel demonizers will spin this as a great victory. Somehow I don't see how this brings their goal of ending Israel any closer.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Every thing that restricts Israeli claims to more and more land affects life on the ground.

The Vatican recognizing Israel affects life on the ground. US decisions regarding passports issued to US citizens born in Jerusalem affects life on the ground.

The continued condemnation of settlements in occupied territory affects life on the ground.

Israel is continuing to isolate itself.

And the solution is to give land to fictious people ("palestinians") whose only dream and wish is the annihilate you? I think that jews and israel citizens rather perish standing up and fighting than kneeling before pushed to the ground and get their head cut off while the last words they hear are "allahu akbar".

[NeverSure]

The problem stems from the fact that Israel itself has never defined where its borders are...they keep moving.

After WWII the UN and international decree gave the land called Israel including the West Bank and Gaza to Israel. At that time and until this day there wasn't and never had been a nation called Palestine. There wasn't a people called Palestinians except in the broader sense of the region called Palestine which included parts or all of various ME countries.

The West Bank is often used as a deflection because it includes E. Jerusalem which includes all of the historic sites found in the Old Testament which Muslims and Jews accept as legitimate.

The real sticking point is that E. Jerusalem contains the historic Temple Mount. This is all about the Temple Mount where the historic Jewish Temple was. This was the temple which contained the Holy of Holies which contained the Ark of the Covenant, the focus of the movie Raiders of The Lost Ark.

This fight is really about the Temple Mount. The old Jewish Temple from the Old Testament was destroyed by the Romans when they conquered Israel in the first century AD. When the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire took it away from the Romans they built a huge Muslim Mosque on it which still stands. Israeli Muslims worship in it now.

Because this Temple Mount is the most holy site to Jews, and the second or third most holy to Muslims, all talk of the West Bank or E. Jerusalem is deflection.

This fight is all about a Temple Mount to the Muslims, The Old City including the Temple Mount to the Jews.

[NeverSure]

I neglected to clarify that this was given to Israel after WWII, taken away soon thereafter by force by Jordan, and then recaptured by Israel in 1967 in The Six Day War. At this time Israel is occupying only that which was given by international decree after WWII, including Israel's historic E. Jerusalem and the Old City. This was built by Israel over the past at least 3,700 years.

"Palestinians" are newcomers, having named themselves that in 1988 under Yassar Arafat.

[dexterm]

The problem stems from the fact that Israel itself has never defined where its borders are...they keep moving.

After WWII the UN and international decree gave the land called Israel including the West Bank and Gaza to Israel. At that time and until this day there wasn't and never had been a nation called Palestine. There wasn't a people called Palestinians except in the broader sense of the region called Palestine which included parts or all of various ME countries.

The West Bank is often used as a deflection because it includes E. Jerusalem which includes all of the historic sites found in the Old Testament which Muslims and Jews accept as legitimate.

The real sticking point is that E. Jerusalem contains the historic Temple Mount. This is all about the Temple Mount where the historic Jewish Temple was. This was the temple which contained the Holy of Holies which contained the Ark of the Covenant, the focus of the movie Raiders of The Lost Ark.

This fight is really about the Temple Mount. The old Jewish Temple from the Old Testament was destroyed by the Romans when they conquered Israel in the first century AD. When the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire took it away from the Romans they built a huge Muslim Mosque on it which still stands. Israeli Muslims worship in it now.

Because this Temple Mount is the most holy site to Jews, and the second or third most holy to Muslims, all talk of the West Bank or E. Jerusalem is deflection.

This fight is all about a Temple Mount to the Muslims, The Old City including the Temple Mount to the Jews.

It would be nice to have links for all your pseudo historical and supernatural assertions. Not to worry...we have been here many times before. I am sure they will pop up again to be debated in a more suitable thread. I fear we are drifting off topic anyway.... Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark???

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts and replies have been removed. Some were reported.

This is a pretty straight forward thread about the US Supreme Court decision. It is not about all things related to Israel/Palestine. It would be nice to allow discussions to continue, however, they invariably degenerate into intractable positions and go in a never ending circle.

This is not going to be one of those threads.