Tweet
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard the case on whether passports for children born in the city of Jerusalem should just say “Jerusalem” as they do now, or say “Jerusalem, Israel” as an act of Congress requires. Many on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian issue have been getting worked up about this (for obvious reasons), but this case actually has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. It’s really about signing statements – yes, our old friend from the Bush administration, signing statements.
What basically happened is that the State Department has a policy of neutrality towards the status of Jerusalem when it comes to passports. If you were born in Jerusalem, your passport simply said “Jersualem” as your place of birth. Congress didn’t like this policy and passed a law stating that passports should list people born in Jerusalem as having been born in “Jerusalem, Israel.” Bush (W) signed the bill but issued a signing statement that he would not comply with the passport provision because it encroached on the authority of the President in foreign affairs.
So here is the conflict: If the court uphold the current rule and does not allow the passport to say “Jerusalem, Israel” it will essentially be saying that the President’s signing statement overrides the act of Congress even though the act specifically contradicts the signing statement. If Congress strikes down the neutrality provision and requires the passport to say “Jerusalem, Israel” it will be because it holds that the President may not ignore an act of Congress even in foreign affairs. If you’re a progressive who supports neutrality on Jerusalem, be careful what you wish for and take a look at who your allies are. If you’re like me and would like to see Congress reassert itself in foreign and military affairs then the neutrality provision is collateral damage, but well worth it.
You can read this an my earlier posts at my blog, Rational Persuasion
7 Comments
” If you’re a progressive who supports neutrality on Jerusalem, be careful what you wish for and take a look at who your allies are.”
Confused: just what do we progressives wish for and who are our allies?
Catch-22 time
the result of no change in policy is not possible.
I guess the greater good is the USSC saying signing statements are not law.
But then we in the situation where Congress, not the Executive, conducts foreign policy, just by enacting laws that override the Executive.
How did the act become law? Was it part of a larger bill that the president had to sign?
If so, then maybe a signing statement was appropriate, assuming the president thinks that part of the law is unconstitutional. As many of us here know, the U.S. Congress does many things regarding this part of our foreign policy that are extremely irresponsible, so it’s not hard to believe that they would pass an unconstitutional law in order to please their Jew constituency.
Since Jews constitute about 1% of the population, I doubt Congress cares. I bet it’s more about evangelical Christians than anything else.
That is exactly how it happened. It was part of a larger bill appropriating funds for foreign operations. Bush elected to sign it with a siging statement rather than veto the whole thing.
Thanks for reading, I hope to be writing more regularly and hope you keep enjoying.
This is the way the Constitution is currently set up – Congress ended the Viet Nam war – not the executive – by simply not appropriating funds for that war.