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.
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.