Posted on 06/08/2015 7:30:38 AM PDT by rickyrikardo
The Supreme Court on Monday said Congress overstepped its bounds when it tried to force the president's hand in a hot-button dispute over the Middle East.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court struck down a 2002 law requiring the State Department to recognize Jerusalem as a part of Israel — over the objections of both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, which had refused to implement the law. The Supreme Court sided with the executive branch on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
This seems bad, but I admit to not understanding the true issue here.
No President has recognized Jerusalem as Israel because there are negotiations about what part of Jerusalem belongs to whom.
No President has recognized Jerusalem as Israel because there are negotiations about what part of Jerusalem belongs to whom.
The State Dept works for the Moslem Brotherhood
and the Nazi nation -— when it is not arming
al Qaeda (Benghazi) or lying to Congress.
Reading the article sure helps. It’s about passports.
I think many people believe recognizing Jerusalem as part of Israel (which the Palestinians and much of the Arab World do not recognize)would inflame the tensions already there. Jerusalem IS a part of Israel, but legally adding Israel to the address would be upsetting to Islamists who are already pretty violent. It’s obvious to anyone looking at a map (unless the map was generated by said Arabs) that Jerusalem IS IN Israel......for as long as Israel exists (may it be forever).
This seems like another terrible decision by the court, which seems to prefer the prerogative of the executive to the specific laws passed by congress. I guess it's symbiotic: SCOTUS gains power when it arbitrarily assigns functions to the Executive Branch like this. It means, literally, no law is a law when passed by Congress until the Executive decides if he agrees with it, and the Supreme Court rules on it.
I don't believe that the Founders intended the courts to have this role, and for once I'm going to have to agree with Mike Huckabee who brought this issue up earlier this year.
Yeah but Guantanamo is in Cuba. Is it part of Cuba?
The U.S. State Department has never been keen on this sort of thing. The long-lasting uncertainties over the status of Berlin after the division of East and West Germany is probably a good example of how they handle a delicate situation like this.
If this has to do with passports then this administration has NO right wtf so ever to deny Israelis passports; these idiots (Obama admin) have an open border policy that has allowed millions across our southern border unobstructed. This is absurd and pure hypocrisy.
Israel is the only nation who doesn’t have embassies in the city they designate as their capitol
Jerusalem was settled as a Jewish City over 4,000 years ago.
So who do you think it belongs to?
Certainly not Fakestinians who came after Oslo, or Jordanians
Egyptians, or Saudis.
Good to bring this up now and get each candidate on the record. Although every candidate promises to move the embassies to Jerusalem and once POTUS shamefully bread that promise.
It is in Cuba and it’s address should reflect that. Jerusalem is in Israel and it’s address should reflect that.....to anyone with an ounce of sense. Many Arab maps don’t even have Israel on them. We recognize Israel as a legitimate country, so our State Dept, pResident and SCOTUS are showing their folly.
In the case of the 2002 law that was the heart of this legal dispute, the first question that ought to come to mind is: Why would the Bush administration willfully ignore a legislative mandate that it had signed into law? The answer is that the passport issue was not passed as stand-alone legislation. Instead, it was buried in a much larger Federal spending bill ... and the Bush administration made it very clear that it did not recognize Congress' authority in the matter, while the administration decided not to hold an entire Federal funding bill hostage to it.
On its face, the 2002 passport regulation is highly questionable. It actually gives the holder of the passport the right to decide how their country of origin is to be listed on their own passport. This sounds ridiculous on its face. If I was born in Baltimore, should I have the right to decide that Tibet or Haiti was actually the country where I was born?
If I was a U.S. citizen born in East Berlin in the 1950s, I wonder how the U.S. State Department would list my place of birth if I went and got a passport for the first time today?
That itself is an indication of just how ill-defined the legal status of Jerusalem is. It would be very rare for a respectable country that maintains diplomatic relations all over the world to establish an embassy in a disputed area.
No its the best example of Jew hatred I could find these days
/sarcasm off/
Of course the passport holder can choose their gender, just not their country.
It is shameful that this is so political. A man is a man, a woman is a woman, and Jerusalem is in Israel. Denying the truth doesn’t change it.
I guess they must submit to the official label, even if that label is wrong.
What if Caitlyn Jenner wants a passport that says he is a female? Bet in that case everyone switches sides and decides the individual can choose.
The insane generation.
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.