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

[dismal]

Cite?

The majority opinion Justice Kennedy wrote is full of them.

Where exactly?

 

[Arctish]

The majority opinion Justice Kennedy wrote is full of them.

Where exactly?

Do you see on page 1 where it says Held in italics? They are in the section that follows immediately after.

 

[fromderinside]

What's really going on here is that USSC is telling Congress they cannot revise treaties and executive agreements by legislation when that legislation is not in sync with what the United States is obligated to adhere by treaty and approved international agreement. Israel does not include Jerusalem as part of it's UN defined territory as put forth by the UN in 1948, reaffirmed in 1971, signed and approved by the US. Arctish is spot on as is the USSC majority.

The item was a clear attempt to usurp power to congress which it dies not have.

 

[James Madison]

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?

Congress not exercising a role in those particular instances does not mean, suggest, imply, or demonstrate Congress has no role. Rather, at best the logical and rational conclusion is nothing more than Congress simply chose not to exercise a role and didn't exercise a role.

 

[dismal]

Where exactly?

Do you see on page 1 where it says Held in italics? They are in the section that follows immediately after.

That does not say what you think it says.

 

[dismal]

What's really going on here is that USSC is telling Congress they cannot revise treaties and executive agreements by legislation when that legislation is not in sync with what the United States is obligated to adhere by treaty and approved international agreement. Israel does not include Jerusalem as part of it's UN defined territory as put forth by the UN in 1948, reaffirmed in 1971, signed and approved by the US. Arctish is spot on as is the USSC majority.

The item was a clear attempt to usurp power to congress which it dies not have.

That is not even slightly the issue here. This case was decided under the famous "Reception clause" wherein the President is given the ceremonial responsibility to greet ambassadors of other nations.