In landmark decision, SOTUS rule that President Obama respects the Constitution.

[Bronzeage]

One of Congresses last chances to show that Barrack Obama hates the Constitution of the United States, has slipped through their fingers. Apparently, only the President can say who is and who isn't a country, for the purposes of your birthplace on a US passport. This actually started under President Bush, no great respecter of the Constitution, himself.

Supreme Court Backs White House on Jerusalem Passport Dispute

In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts said the majority had taken a bold step. “Today’s decision is a first,” he wrote. “Never before has this court accepted a president’s direct defiance of an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs.”

President Obama was asked for a comment on the ruling, but declined because had not yet read the actual text of the decision. Reporters heard him humming the tune "You're Not the Boss of Me," by They Might Be Giants, as he returned to the Oval Office.

 

[dismal]

A big win for executive power and George Bush signing statements.

Hoorah.

 

[Trausti]

I think the decision is correct, as far as it goes. It's a separation of powers question. Foreign affairs are the prerogative of the executive, not the legislature. But it's a bit ironic. A president who issues executive orders unilaterally re-writing immigration law demurs when the legislature attempts to make foreign policy. M'kay.

 

[dismal]

Foreign affairs are the prerogative of the executive, not the legislature.

A somewhat debatable claim. Before today, perhaps.

There is nothing in the Constitution I can find that suggests the President has a power to conduct foreign affairs unchecked by congress.

If it's supposed to be in here, there are sure a lot of mentions of congress in the unchecked power...

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

And we can find this in the powers of congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

....

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

So you can see the "General Welfare" and Commerce" clauses apply to foreign activities and those include the power to regulate just about everything.

eta:

In briefly skimming the decision it turns out the President's unchecked power to set foreign policy lies here:

Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Somehow I missed it the first time.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The president has domain over international affairs the same as internal affairs, with the role of executing the federal laws. International affairs are not the exclusive domain of the president. There is a large set of federal laws that deal with foreign affairs. Treaties are nothing but that. Maybe the law was a bad idea, but overturning it seems to lack precedence. Does the federal law apply only inside the US borders and the president gets to be a tyrant outside the borders? It would mean all the talk about the legality of wartime torture was a waste of time.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It's not a total loss. Foreigners can still expect results from their presidential campaign contributions. Congress will have to get its cheese at home.

 

[Trausti]

The president has domain over international affairs the same as internal affairs, with the role of executing the federal laws. International affairs are not the exclusive domain of the president. There is a large set of federal laws that deal with foreign affairs. Treaties are nothing but that. Maybe the law was a bad idea, but overturning it seems to lack precedence. Does the federal law apply only inside the US borders and the president gets to be a tyrant outside the borders? It would mean all the talk about the legality of wartime torture was a waste of time.

The issue here was what goes on a passport. That sort of minutiae is not really within Congressional discretion. This is not about regulating foreign commerce or ratifying an arms control treaty.

 

[fromderinside]

It's not a total loss. Foreigners can still expect results from their presidential campaign contributions. Congress will have to get its cheese at home.

I'm sure Israel was hoping they could get past the USSC with Jerusalem legitimized as Israel capital so they could gloat over POTUS - again.

Roberts tried and failed.

Why the hell would any nation want to negotiate with multiple entities if those entities are all under social contract of a single nation. Congress was trying it's nation's rights approach which, with its state's rights efforts, continues to fail.

Until the people are fairly permitted to elect congress, like they can the president, congress isn't legitimate. Its time to apportion congressmen by proportion of popular vote like most civilized states do things.

Whoop whoop POTUS O-ba-ma. Yeah, throw GW a chicken bone too if you like. Proof he didn't get everything wrong. That and Aids relief.

 

[zorq]

This was actually some very subtle and shady maneuvering by what I suspect was a small minority of congress persons to manipulate the US into taking a stance on the Israel/Palestine border dispute.

The fact that this ridiculously unrelated amendment (among countless others) was attached to an appropriations bill is a disgrace. If congress wants to write a bill overhauling passport rules, or designating national days of recognition or setting regulation standards for water quality then they should write individuals bill and vote on them separately. Attaching unpopular pet projects to major must pass appropriations bills is the work of scoundrels. Is there any wonder congress is so hated?

Anyway. If the US writes Israel on the passports of Americans born in Jerusalem then that makes a precedent for the US government recognizing borders that favor Israel. If the US is ever sent over to help with negotiations again, the Israelis will remind them of that precedent and the US will feel compelled to side with the Israelis potentially seriously limiting the flexibility of the negotiations. Plus, plenty of Arabs in the middle east already hate the US for doting on Israel in ways that the US probably shouldn't. Throwing more fuel on that fire won't help anyone (except Israel).

I think the Supreme Court got this decision right, but only because of the slimy way the amendment was included in a completely unrelated bill. Bush and Obama would have refused to sign any bill that included ONLY this provision and the Supreme Court knows it. In fact, a bill like this likely wouldn't have been passed by either chamber of congress without being hidden in other legislation.

Is this SC decision tacit support for "line-item veto" powers? I don't know.

 

[dismal]

The president has domain over international affairs the same as internal affairs, with the role of executing the federal laws. International affairs are not the exclusive domain of the president. There is a large set of federal laws that deal with foreign affairs. Treaties are nothing but that. Maybe the law was a bad idea, but overturning it seems to lack precedence. Does the federal law apply only inside the US borders and the president gets to be a tyrant outside the borders? It would mean all the talk about the legality of wartime torture was a waste of time.

The issue here was what goes on a passport. That sort of minutiae is not really within Congressional discretion. This is not about regulating foreign commerce or ratifying an arms control treaty.

Congress passed a law that dealt with it directly, Bush signed the law, albeit with a signing statement he would not honor this provision. Zivotofsky sued to enforce the law as written, passed and signed.

There is no minutiae threshold for congress.

- - - Updated - - -

This was actually some very subtle and shady maneuvering by what I suspect was a small minority of congress persons to manipulate the US into taking a stance on the Israel/Palestine border dispute.

In checking the relevant law was passed the bi-partisan support of about 80% of each party.

You may feel free to argue most of them probably had not read it if you wish.

 

[untermensche]

Separation of powers doesn't mean happily ever after.

It means the branches fight it out for areas and scope of power.

And the Supreme Court now and then becomes the ultimate referee.

 

[zorq]

This was actually some very subtle and shady maneuvering by what I suspect was a small minority of congress persons to manipulate the US into taking a stance on the Israel/Palestine border dispute.

In checking the relevant law was passed the bi-partisan support of about 80% of each party.

You may feel free to argue most of them probably had not read it if you wish.

I do in fact doubt that most of them read it all the way through but that's not the problem that allowed this law to sneak past congress. The purpose of the bill was not to sort out passport minutia. The purpose of the bill was to allocate funds so that the federal government doesn't die and all the the good things the Government does do can get done. When amendments like this are attached to appropriations bills like this it essentially forces voting congress people into either voting to kill the federal government or allow a poison pill rider into law.

*******The most common reason (exceptions are rare) riders are attached to bills like this is because they are unpopular laws and this is the only way to sneak them onto the books.********

Riders are a very well know problem in democracies like that of the US. I don't know how you could be ignorant of this fact. Forty-three states in the US have laws enabling their respective executive branches the power of line item veto. This power is given explicitly to help counteract the negative effects of riders and poison pill ammendments.

 

[dismal]

In checking the relevant law was passed the bi-partisan support of about 80% of each party.

You may feel free to argue most of them probably had not read it if you wish.

I do in fact doubt that most of them read it all the way through but that's not the problem that allowed this law to sneak past congress. The purpose of the bill was not to sort out passport minutia. The purpose of the bill was to allocate funds so that the federal government doesn't die and all the the good things the Government does do can get done. When amendments like this are attached to appropriations bills like this it essentially forces voting congress people into either voting to kill the federal government or allow a poison pill rider into law.

*******The most common reason (exceptions are rare) riders are attached to bills like this is because they are unpopular laws and this is the only way to sneak them onto the books.********

Riders are a very well know problem in democracies like that of the US. I don't know how you could be ignorant of this fact. Forty-three states in the US have laws enabling their respective executive branches the power of line item veto. This power is given explicitly to help counteract the negative effects of riders and poison pill ammendments.

Nonetheless, this was in a law enacted by both houses of congress and signed by a President.

This makes it as much of a law as laws can get.

There are no provisions in the Constitution that say laws that we passed but really didn't mean don't count.

 

[Trausti]

I do in fact doubt that most of them read it all the way through but that's not the problem that allowed this law to sneak past congress. The purpose of the bill was not to sort out passport minutia. The purpose of the bill was to allocate funds so that the federal government doesn't die and all the the good things the Government does do can get done. When amendments like this are attached to appropriations bills like this it essentially forces voting congress people into either voting to kill the federal government or allow a poison pill rider into law.

*******The most common reason (exceptions are rare) riders are attached to bills like this is because they are unpopular laws and this is the only way to sneak them onto the books.********

Riders are a very well know problem in democracies like that of the US. I don't know how you could be ignorant of this fact. Forty-three states in the US have laws enabling their respective executive branches the power of line item veto. This power is given explicitly to help counteract the negative effects of riders and poison pill ammendments.

Nonetheless, this was in a law enacted by both houses of congress and signed by a President.

This makes it as much of a law as laws can get.

There are no provisions in the Constitution that say laws that we passed but really didn't mean don't count.

That doesn't make a law Constitutional. The ACA was passed by Congress and signed by the President. If Roberts hadn't smoked the ganja and mysteriously concluded that the penalty for not buying private insurance is a "tax," the ACA would be out, too.

 

[dismal]

Nonetheless, this was in a law enacted by both houses of congress and signed by a President.

This makes it as much of a law as laws can get.

There are no provisions in the Constitution that say laws that we passed but really didn't mean don't count.

That doesn't make a law Constitutional. The ACA was passed by Congress and signed by the President. If Roberts hadn't smoked the ganja and mysteriously concluded that the penalty for not buying private insurance is a "tax," the ACA would be out, too.

But whether this law is or isn't Constitutional has nothing to do with the particular objections zorq is raising.

 

[James Madison]

I think the decision is correct, as far as it goes. It's a separation of powers question. Foreign affairs are the prerogative of the executive, not the legislature. But it's a bit ironic. A president who issues executive orders unilaterally re-writing immigration law demurs when the legislature attempts to make foreign policy. M'kay.

Did you read CJ Roberts' dissent? He makes a very strong and compelling argument as to why the majority decision is incorrect. CJ Roberts is correct in his analysis the majority opinion extrapolates too much from the receive ambassadors. From the opinion:

In this case, the President claims the exclusive and
preclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns. The
Court devotes much of its analysis to accepting the Executive’s contention. Ante, at 6–26. I have serious doubts
about that position. The majority places great weight on
the Reception Clause, which directs that the Executive
“shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”
Art. II, §3. But that provision, framed as an obligation
rather than an authorization, appears alongside the duties
imposed on the President by Article II, Section 3, not the
powers granted to him by Article II, Section 2.

People ratified the Constitution with Alexander Hamilton’s assurance that executive reception of ambassadors
“is more a matter of dignity than of authority” and “will be
without consequence in the administration of the government.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 420 (C. Rossiter ed.
1961). In short, at the time of the founding, “there was no
reason to view the reception clause as a source of discretionary authority for the president.”

The President does have power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors. Art. II, §2. But
those authorities are shared with Congress, ibid., so they
hardly support an inference that the recognition power is
exclusive.

​

 

[Trausti]

I think the decision is correct, as far as it goes. It's a separation of powers question. Foreign affairs are the prerogative of the executive, not the legislature. But it's a bit ironic. A president who issues executive orders unilaterally re-writing immigration law demurs when the legislature attempts to make foreign policy. M'kay.

Did you read CJ Roberts' dissent? He makes a very strong and compelling argument as to why the majority decision is incorrect. CJ Roberts is correct in his analysis the majority opinion extrapolates too much from the receive ambassadors. From the opinion:

In this case, the President claims the exclusive and
preclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns. The
Court devotes much of its analysis to accepting the Executive’s contention. Ante, at 6–26. I have serious doubts
about that position. The majority places great weight on
the Reception Clause, which directs that the Executive
“shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”
Art. II, §3. But that provision, framed as an obligation
rather than an authorization, appears alongside the duties
imposed on the President by Article II, Section 3, not the
powers granted to him by Article II, Section 2.

People ratified the Constitution with Alexander Hamilton’s assurance that executive reception of ambassadors
“is more a matter of dignity than of authority” and “will be
without consequence in the administration of the government.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 420 (C. Rossiter ed.
1961). In short, at the time of the founding, “there was no
reason to view the reception clause as a source of discretionary authority for the president.”

The President does have power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors. Art. II, §2. But
those authorities are shared with Congress, ibid., so they
hardly support an inference that the recognition power is
exclusive.

​

Well, maybe. But what role did Congress have in the recognition of the USSR, Bangladesh, or South Sudan?

 

[Arctish]

I think the decision is correct, as far as it goes. It's a separation of powers question. Foreign affairs are the prerogative of the executive, not the legislature. But it's a bit ironic. A president who issues executive orders unilaterally re-writing immigration law demurs when the legislature attempts to make foreign policy. M'kay.

Did you read CJ Roberts' dissent? He makes a very strong and compelling argument as to why the majority decision is incorrect. CJ Roberts is correct in his analysis the majority opinion extrapolates too much from the receive ambassadors. From the opinion:

In this case, the President claims the exclusive and
preclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns. The
Court devotes much of its analysis to accepting the Executive’s contention. Ante, at 6–26. I have serious doubts
about that position. The majority places great weight on
the Reception Clause, which directs that the Executive
“shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”
Art. II, §3. But that provision, framed as an obligation
rather than an authorization, appears alongside the duties
imposed on the President by Article II, Section 3, not the
powers granted to him by Article II, Section 2.

People ratified the Constitution with Alexander Hamilton’s assurance that executive reception of ambassadors
“is more a matter of dignity than of authority” and “will be
without consequence in the administration of the government.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 420 (C. Rossiter ed.
1961). In short, at the time of the founding, “there was no
reason to view the reception clause as a source of discretionary authority for the president.”

The President does have power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors. Art. II, §2. But
those authorities are shared with Congress, ibid., so they
hardly support an inference that the recognition power is
exclusive.

​

The president is the one responsible for conducting foreign policy, and the status of Jerusalem is one of the most contentious points of foreign policy in the region.

The last time I checked, the US had not officially recognized Jerusalem as being pert of Israel. So how can a law require the US government to call Jerusalem part of Israel on official US documents, regardless of the President's current foreign policy and without the US government actually recognizing it as such?

 

[dismal]

Did you read CJ Roberts' dissent? He makes a very strong and compelling argument as to why the majority decision is incorrect. CJ Roberts is correct in his analysis the majority opinion extrapolates too much from the receive ambassadors. From the opinion:

In this case, the President claims the exclusive and
preclusive power to recognize foreign sovereigns. The
Court devotes much of its analysis to accepting the Executive’s contention. Ante, at 6–26. I have serious doubts
about that position. The majority places great weight on
the Reception Clause, which directs that the Executive
“shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”
Art. II, §3. But that provision, framed as an obligation
rather than an authorization, appears alongside the duties
imposed on the President by Article II, Section 3, not the
powers granted to him by Article II, Section 2.

People ratified the Constitution with Alexander Hamilton’s assurance that executive reception of ambassadors
“is more a matter of dignity than of authority” and “will be
without consequence in the administration of the government.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 420 (C. Rossiter ed.
1961). In short, at the time of the founding, “there was no
reason to view the reception clause as a source of discretionary authority for the president.”

The President does have power to make treaties and appoint ambassadors. Art. II, §2. But
those authorities are shared with Congress, ibid., so they
hardly support an inference that the recognition power is
exclusive.

​

Well, maybe. But what role did Congress have in the recognition of the USSR, Bangladesh, or South Sudan?

Why is that relevant? The Congress* may choose to delegate, enable or restrict the actions of the President. This is a case where the Congress made its wishes explicitly clear in legislation and the President ignored it.

*I think it's a bit confusing inaccurate to say "the Congress" as if the Congress just unilaterally acted on this. What we are talking about here is duly passed legislation, in which the Executive had the opportunity to play it's appropriate Constitutional role.

- - - Updated - - -

The president is the one responsible for conducting foreign policy

Cite?

 

[Arctish]

The president is the one responsible for conducting foreign policy

Cite?

The majority opinion Justice Kennedy wrote is full of them.