FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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 ...
Let’s be clear, a Congressional Act was enacted into US law by President Bush. President Bush, could have vetoed it, but chose not too. The law, signed into law by President Bush, gave US citizens a choice to have their place birth printed on their US passport as as Jerusalem, Israel or Jerusalem if they were born at that location.
Since the law provided a choice to a particular set of US citizens and SCOTUS found that providing a choice to those US citizens is unconstitutional, then its an attack on free speech and individual liberty.
It’s a step closer toward tyranny. It says Presidents can ignore sections of law they have signed into law if they disagree with the section, but sign it because they agreed with the other sections of the law.
Bush signed the law with a rider explaining he objected to its ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ provision on Constitutional grounds. He not only didn’t enforce it, he objected to it.
And it turns out that Bush’s objection was perfectly reasonable, since that provision of the law was just struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Who the hell is anyone to pass a law that provides "a choice to a particular set of U.S. citizens," anyway? How can this possibly constitute free speech and individual liberty if it is only given to a limited number of people?
Good riddance to a bad law. If it stood up under a legal challenge on "free speech" and "individual liberty" grounds, then it might only be a matter of time before some radical Muslim from Michigan filed suit (successfully) to have "Dearborn, Saudi Arabia" listed on his passport.
Anyone who objected to having Jerusalem, Israel as their place of birth on their US passport was given the choice to have their place of birth printed as Jerusalem on their US passport. Of course, the statist won’t stand for it. Choices lead to personal liberty and the statist would rather sue than allow that. Some US citizens will make their choices to make a public statement with their choice based on their First Amendment right to free speech. The statist will take to the Supreme Court to stop it.
You’ve been browbeat into submission. Free yourself and demand personal liberty.
It’s not a free speech issue at all. A passport is a legal document, expected to be honored everywhere in the world. Circumspection is called for
Obama’s idiocy aside, the courts have since the founding granted the president broad powers in foreign relations, as that was one of the few proper powers assigned to the Executive Branch.
A cherry inside a cup if water is a still a cherry, not water.
Thanks.
What a thorough explanation. Thanks.
I demand personal liberty. I was born in California, I'm a proud member of La Raza, and I demand the right to have "Los Angeles, Mexico" listed on my passport.
Thank you for your support on this.
I don't know which hypothetical situation you're describing here, but this sure doesn't describe the U.S. Supreme Court case at hand. In this case, the "statists" were the defendants and never filed a lawsuit.
Okay. If you can get Congress to pass a Congressional Act legislating a California born member of La Raza may request Los Angeles, Mexico printed on their US passports and the President signs the Act into law, then I’d support you’re demand to have Los Angeles, Mexico printed on the passport.
But if the President says, “I signed that Act into law under protest so I refuse to allow the State Department print Los Angeles, Mexico on US passports”, then I don’t want to hear an argument that passports are US foreign policy and the President has exclusive rights to develop and foreign policy.
Okay. If you can get Congress to pass a Congressional Act legislating a California born member of La Raza may request Los Angeles, Mexico printed on their US passports and the President signs the Act into law, then I’d support you’re demand to have Los Angeles, Mexico printed on the passport.
But if the President says, “I signed that Act into law under protest so I refuse to allow the State Department print Los Angeles, Mexico on US passports”, then I don’t want to hear an argument that passports are US foreign policy and the President has exclusive rights to develop and foreign policy.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Too many PAL/moslum living in Jerusalem that some would prefer not have a friendly passport ?
Free speech and personal liberty are not subject to Congressional action. Either we all have these rights, or nobody has them. Congress doesn't have the authority to dole out these rights for vocal special-interest groups on a whim.
Good analysis and thanks. Conservatives seem very hot blooded lately and cannot see the forest for the trees.
The Left is out to destroy the Constitution. We should walk carefully and think wisely.
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.