Legislative History
In 2002, then Senator Hillary Clinton voted in support of this law. Although President George W Bush did not veto the bill, he did issue a signing statement that essentially recognized the law as advisory and not a mandate feeling the Legislative was infringing on the Executive’s powers concerning foreign affairs. President Obama’s administration has followed in this similar precedence.
Case History
Since the law was enacted, the American Consulate in Israel has refused to allow American citizens born in Jerusalem to choose to display their place of birth as saying Israel rather than Jerusalem on their passports, which legal scholars debate as purely a matter of identification and not one of foreign policy. The Zivitofsky family challenged the law after being denied the right to list their newborn son‘s place of birth as Israel on his passport. After bouncing around in the lower courts before making its way to the US Supreme Court as Zivitofsky v. Clinton, the court finally agreed to review the case after being sent back to the lower courts one more time to determine the merits of the case. This next term the case will be heard again as Zivitofsky v. Kerry and it is sure to be one of political interest.
The Political Perspective
Originally the case was thought to raise a “political question”, a type of case the courts do not want to hear because it concerns legislative or executive powers outlined in the US Constitution. Such matters are often left to the other branches to dispute and solve outside of the court. Since the case deals with a law enacted by Congress that possibly infringes upon the powers of the Executive, some justices and lower courts thought the case raised a political question. However, a new twist evolved. The US Constitution says that the “President has the power to receive ambassadors…” This old clause is now being debated or called into question as “Recognition Powers”. So what is the big deal? Well if the court decides there is such a thing as “Recognition Powers” then it is a new term you can expect to see in future textbooks but it is also a chance for the Justices to make a ruling on how these powers are to be interpreted and enforced.
The Citizen Perspective
Zivitofsky’s attorney also argues that not enforcing the 2002 law is an act of discrimination. Citizens born prior to 1948 can have their passports say they were born in Palestine. Palestinians born today can have their passports say they were born in West Bank or the Gaza Strip. However, some have honored this law when applying for a passport in America; just not in Israel. To challenge the State Department and the Executive and their refusal to accept Jerusalem as part of Israel, some reporters have been taking note of White House pictures of Joe Biden and other State Department documents that have “Jerusalem, Israel” written in the captions. After being brought the attention of the White House, of course all of these documents have been changed. So be on the lookout. Remember the children’s cartoon “Where Is Waldo?” The next time you see a White House photo or State Department document that has “Jerusalem, Israel” contact the President. If the State Department’s official stance on Jerusalem is to be honored, heaven forbid the peace talks stall because someone thought Jerusalem was part of Israel. Why on Earth would they think that?
Links
http://www.c-span.org/video/?302564-2/zivotofsky-vs-clinton-oral-argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O47rcvREnsM
http://yishaifleisher.com/radio/fight-for-jerusalem-one-passport-at-a-time-2/
No comments:
Post a Comment