From time to time, the Palestine Center distributes articles it believes will enhance understanding of the Palestinian political reality. The following article by Robert Barnes was published by The Washington Post on 8 June 2015.
“Supreme Court strikes down ‘born in Israel’ passport law“
President Obama and President George W. Bush before him had said the 2002 passport law embraces the interpretation that Jerusalem belongs to Israel, something the executive branch has long held should be settled by the parties in the Mideast. They refused to let the State Department honor requests such requests.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said Congress has a role in managing the nation’s foreign affairs but not in recognizing foreign nations and governments.
“Recognition is a topic on which the nation must speak with one voice,” wrote Kennedy.”That voice must be the President’s.”
The vote to strike down the law was 6 to 3, with the court’s four liberals — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — joining Kennedy’s opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas said the law was unconstitutional, but he did not endorse Kennedy’s reasoning.
Justice Antonin Scalia made his displeasure with the decision more pronounced by reading portions of his dissent from the bench.
“The text and structure of the Constitution divide responsibility for foreign policy, like responsibility for just about everything else, between the two coordinate, equal political branches,” Scalia said. “A principle that the nation must have a single foreign policy, which elevates efficiency above the text and structure of the Constitution, will systematically favor the president at the expense of Congress.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. would have also upheld the law.
The case was brought by Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, a boy who made his second trip to the Supreme Court to present the justices with a major separation of powers case before he even had his bar mitzvah.
There are about 50,000 people like Zivotofsky, and some of them want the option Congress passed in 2002. Bush signed the legislation to which the provision was attached. But he announced that he would not enforce it, saying it violated the U.S. policy of neutrality, and the Obama administration has taken the same position.
When the case got to the Supreme Court three years ago, the issue was whether the judiciary could even settle the dispute, or whether it was a “political question” that the executive and legislative branches must hash out.
The court ruled 8 to 1 that the judiciary should settle the matter and sent it back to lower courts. An appeals court ruled for the administration, and Monday’s decision affirmed that ruling.
The case is Zivotofsky v. Kerry.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.
Click here for more Reports and Commentary
