A bridge too far
Walter Russell Mead rips the President's attempt to
exclude Congress from any say in approving the Iranian nuclear deal.
Dissing Congress is a risky move for American presidents. There have
been widespread reports that many Democrats on Capitol Hill would like
to support the President’s Iran policy, but are worried about the
political fallout among voters back home. In the end, many of these
waverers would probably support the President on the Iran deal in a
straight up Congressional vote, but if the President does an end run to
the Security Council, the waverers could—and many will—oppose him on
procedural grounds. Both the Senate and the House are jealous of their
Constitutional prerogatives, and voting to uphold the powers of Congress
is a much easier vote for Democrats than voting against the President
on an important foreign policy issue.
This is not likely to end well.
President Obama was stretching both his Constitutional powers and his
political mandate when he decided to short circuit the treaty process
for one of the most important decisions that American foreign policy has
taken in many years. There is precious little doubt that the Founders
would have considered this a threat to the system of checks and balances
they wrote into the Constitution. In modern times, presidential
authority has expanded, largely because American foreign relations have
become so complex and the world moves so quickly that it would be
impractical to subject every significant agreement between the United
States and other countries to the treaty process. But given the length
of this negotiation process and the enormous stakes involved, the Iran
agreement really ought to have been framed as a treaty. The President,
to be fair, knew very well that he could never get a two thirds vote in
the Senate for this agreement, and, believing as he does that this step
is necessary to the safety of the United States, he framed the deal as
an executive agreement to avoid exactly the scrutiny and vote that the
Constitution requires.
Congress grudgingly went along with that, passing the
Corker-Menendez law as a way of regularizing the President’s irregular
choice. This tilted the playing field toward the President, as opponents
would need a two thirds majority in both houses (instead of only a one
third majority in the Senate) to block the deal for good.
That the President is blowing off this concession by
Congress is a serious matter—more serious perhaps than the White House
realizes. He is really requiring Congress to accept a permanent and
significant diminution in its power for the sake of an Iran deal that
few members view with enthusiasm. The precedent he is setting changes
the Constitution, essentially abrogating the treaty power of Congress
any time a President can get a Security Council resolution to
incorporate the terms of an executive agreement.
Regardless of the merits or demerits of the Iran deal,
this is the wrong way to proceed. If President Obama chooses to go this
route, he is provoking a constitutional crisis in order to get sanctions
relief to Iran sixty days faster than would otherwise happen. The
Congressional Democrats calling on President Obama to refrain from this
mischievous and foolhardy course are quite right; this is a bridge too
far.
Why would Obama do this? The only reason I can think of is that he is afraid of how clear it could become within 60 days that this is a
bad deal, and therefore he's taking the chance that the same Supreme Court majority that slashed Congress' powers in the
Zivotofsky case and upheld his overreaching on Obamacare will also let him get away with this. Even impeachment would be too late to prevent the deal from standing with a binding UN Security Council resolution.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, Obamacare, P 5+1, United Nations Security Council, United States Congress, US Supreme Court
American Orthodox Jews fearful of 'gay marriage' decision
Maybe this will be an impetus for American Orthodox Jews to make aliya. There's some real fear going around about the future implications of last week's US Supreme Court decision forcing the states to allow 'gay marriage' and
how that might impact Orthodox Jewish institutions.
[T]he Orthodox Jewish community has a different view. This was voiced
by, among others, the Orthodox Union and the Agudath Israel of America.
The latter, in a statement Friday, warned
that its members faced “moral opprobrium” and were in danger of
“tangible negative consequences” if “they refuse to transgress their
beliefs.”
To judge by recent events, they are understating the
case. The whole campaign for same sex marriage, however high-minded its
ideals and however real — and all too often violent — the injustices
endured by same-sex couples, has been levied at the expense of religious
Jews and Christians. The U.S. Supreme Court majority knows that full
well. But it dodged the issue, with Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of
the majority opinion, giving the fears of religious Americans less than a
paragraph.
Kennedy emphasized
that “religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may
continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine
precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” He noted that the
First Amendment, part of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, “ensures
that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as
they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central
to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue
the family structure they have long revered.”
That was a reference to the free speech part of the
First Amendment. But it was startling — shocking even — that the
majority gave no mention at all of the Constitution’s second principle
of religious protection, the right to the “free exercise” of religion.
That is where the battle lines are being drawn by liberal and left-wing
factions in America seeking to force religious individuals to embrace
same-sex marriage.
In recent months, Americans have been reading about a
Christian baker who has been the subject of an enforcement action in
Colorado for declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding,
a husband-and-wife clerical team that reportedly may have to close
their for-profit wedding chapel because they won’t hold same-sex
nuptials in it, and a New York family that is tangled in a legal
proceeding for refusing to rent out their home for a same-sex wedding
reception. A Catholic adoption agency that would not work with same-sex
couples has been forced out of its charitable work.
“In all likelihood, many of these rear-guard actions
against marriage equality will soon fall of their own weight,” Jeffrey
Toobin, who covers the Constitution for the New Yorker, wrote
after the Supreme Court spoke. “Like so many of their fellow-Americans,
wedding photographers and the like will make their peace with the new
rules that guarantee their neighbors an equal chance at happiness.
(Besides, they need the business.)” Maybe, but I’m not so sure things
will go as smoothly as he imagines in the Orthodox Jewish world.
“The issue here is not whether all human beings are
created in the Divine Image, or whether they have inherent human
dignity. Of course they are, of course they do,” the Agudah said in a
statement after Obergefell vs. Hodges was handed down. But it went on to
assert that “the truths of Torah are eternal, and stand as our beacon
even in the face of shifting social mores.” At some point this is going
to come to a head in a way that will test George Washington’s promise to
the Jews to a degree that we haven’t yet seen.
I'll shut the comments on this post if I have to, but I can tell you that I would not want my children taught by someone who is openly gay. No way. I want my children to be able to look up at their teachers as religious role models. Then again, since I live in Israel, it's unlikely that any of my children's schools (except for the children in university, which is a different category) could be forced to hire gay teachers.
Labels: Agudath Yisrael, American Jews, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, gays, Orthodox Jews, US Supreme Court
Obama: Israel has no more claim to Jerusalem than Russia does to Crimea
The Obama administration's solicitor general argued in the Supreme Court on Monday that
Israel has no more claim to Jerusalem than Russia has to Crimea. The argument was part of the
Zivotofsky case. This is from the first link.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who is rumored to
be in the running to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder,
drew the comparison on Monday while he attempted to convince the Supreme
Court that Jerusalem is not officially part of Israel.
...
During Monday’s arguments before the court, Solicitor General
Verrilli maintained that a formal acknowledgment of Jerusalem being part
of Israel would be tantamount to the United States putting “Crimea,
Russia” on a citizen’s passport.
Verrilli was referring to the Ukrainian region of Crimea, which Russia forcefully seized earlier this year.
“The position of the executive [Obama] is that we recognize, as a
practical matter, the authority of Israel over West Jerusalem,” Verrilli
argued, according to court transcripts. “With respect to the rest of Jerusalem, the issue is far more complicated.”
“I do think, for example, Your Honor,” Verrilli said to Justice
Samuel Alito, “if [we] were to start issuing passports to people born in
Crimea tomorrow that identified Russia as the country of birth, that
would carry obvious implications for our foreign policy position, and it
would contradict the foreign policy position in a way that could be
quite deleterious.”
As with the disputes over Crimea’s status, stating that Jerusalem is
part of Israel also would interfere with the White House’s policy
positions, Verrilli argued.
I don't know in which hospital Menachem Zivotofsky was born, but every Jewish hospital in Jerusalem is in 'west' Jerusalem, with the exception of Hadassah Mount Scopus, which was part of an enclave that was within Israel between 1948-67. So even according to the administration's own arguments, we ought to be able to put "Jerusalem, Israel" on our children's US passports as their birth place.
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, State Department obsession with Israel, US Supreme Court
US Supreme Court to vote 5-4 against Jerusalem?
He's grown up a bit since you last saw him, but the kid on the left is Menachem Zivotofsky, the plaintiff in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (formerly known as Zivotofsky v. Clinton, Zivotofsky v. Rice and probably one or two more I'm forgetting), and he was in court in Washington on Monday to hear his lawyers argue to put "
Jerusalem, Israel" on his passport as his birthplace. Four of my eight children (including one Menachem's age) are similarly situated, although two of them were born before the law on which Menachem relies was enacted.
My bet is that, unfortunately, it's going to go 5-4 against us, with the Obama appointees carrying the day.
Liberal members of the court seemed to agree with the Obama
administration — and President George W. Bush before him — that the 2002
passport law embraces the interpretation that Jerusalem belongs to
Israel and therefore should be seen as an unconstitutional intrusion on
the executive branch’s role in setting the nation’s foreign policy.
Conservatives
seemed to endorse the view that Congress was simply enabling
“self-identification” of those born to Americans in the city, and that
it does not affect the recognition issue.
It appeared
that the outcome would be determined by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He
looked for a compromise — some version of a passport disclaimer by the
president — but also indicated that he believes the court must yield to
the executive branch in matters of foreign affairs.
Unless Kennedy changes his mind, I think we will lose this one.
Labels: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, US Supreme Court
US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Congress can decide that Jerusalem is Israel's capital
Maybe by Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky's Bar Mitzva they'll resolve it.
Zivotofsky v.
Kerry (formerly Clinton and several others) is going
back to the Supreme Court again.
Now at the high court, the case will examine a constitutional question
of checks and balances: whether the president of the United States is
the sole authority able to declare US foreign policy, or whether
Congress may pass law overriding the policy.
Congress attempted to pass such a law in the 2003 Foreign Relations
Authorization Act , which declared that “the Secretary [of State]
shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian,
record the place of birth as Israel " in that citizen's passport.
The
legislation had wide support among major American Jewish
organizations, such as the Jewish Federations of North America and the
American Jewish Committee. But over the summer, a federal appeals
court struck down key provisions of that law, ruling the president
retains the ability to determine Jerusalem's sovereignty over
Congress based on constitutional grounds.
...
Congress has pushed against the White House on this matter
through several administrations. However, the State Department, through
both Democratic and Republican administrations, has refused to directly
declare Jerusalem the Israeli capital or indirectly declare the city
Israeli territory through passport listings.
Asked on Monday to
comment on the ruling, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that
the government's position on Jerusalem's status had not changed.
For those who have forgotten, here's AP's Matt Lee taking apart Jen Psaki's predecessor, Victoria Nuland on this issue.
Let's go to the videotape.
Today's press briefing isn't up yet. Stay tuned.
Labels: Jen Psaki, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Matt Lee, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, US Supreme Court
Back to the Supreme Court for the Zivotofsky's: Court of Appeals says only President can decide what country includes Jerusalem
The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled unanimously on Tuesday that Congress had no right to pass a law that allow 11-year old
Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky to have his birthplace listed on his US passport as "Jerusalem, Israel." And so, Menachem's parents, Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky are once again going to
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the president - and not
lawmakers - had sole authority to say who controls the historic holy
city claimed by Israelis and Palestinians.
In the US government,
the president "exclusively holds the power to determine whether to
recognize a foreign sovereign," wrote Judge Karen Henderson for the
panel.
Since the founding of Israel in 1948, US presidents have
declined to state a position on the status of Jerusalem, leaving it as
one of the thorniest issues to be resolved in possible future peace
talks.
...
The Zivotofskys plan to ask the high court's opinion again, their lawyer, Nathan Lewin, said on Tuesday.
"Today's
majority and concurring decisions acknowledge that the constitutional
issue presented by this case is significant and calls for resolution by
the Supreme Court," Lewin said in a statement.
An estimated
50,000 American citizens were born in Jerusalem and could have used the
law, if it were enforced, to list Israel as their birthplace.
Four of Mrs. Carl's and my children were born in Jerusalem, Israel.
Labels: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, State Department obsession with Israel, US passports, US State Department, US Supreme Court
Breaking: Supreme Court rules Federal courts can consider Jerusalem passport issue
Mazal Tov to my friend Ari Zivotofsky and his son Menachem.
They won their Supreme Court case.
The U.S. Supreme Court returned to the lower courts the issue of whether Americans born in Jerusalem may list "Israel" on their passports -- a ruling that drew praise from Jewish groups.
The decision delivered Monday was a success for the family of Jerusalem-born boy Menachem Zivotofsky. His family for years has sought to force the State Department to agree to state on his passport that he was born in Israel, citing a law passed by Congress in 2002.
President George W. Bush signed the law, but in doing so refused to implement it, citing executive prerogative in foreign policy. President Obama has continued that practice.
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, overruled lower court decisions that had contended that the judicial branch does not have authority over this area since it is not the courts' place to determine foreign policy.
"The courts are fully capable of determining whether this statute may be given effect, or instead must be struck down in light of authority conferred on the Executive by the Constitution," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
Justice Stephen Breyer dissented.
YES! I have four children and three grandchildren who were born in JERUSALEM, ISRAEL!
Labels: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, US Supreme Court
More than just stupidity?
This is the first live post of the weekend. If you
followed me on Twitter, you would know already that the reason for this is that I took the wrong computer to the hospital on Saturday night.
You will recall that this past week I covered the story of the White House 'cleansing' its web site from references to
Jerusalem, Israel.
I treated that story as yet another instance of the rank amateurism of the Obama administration. James Taranto sees a
more devious, albeit failed, agenda.
As the Sun acknowledges, "the cutlines on the White House photos were themselves not formal legal recognition of sovereignty." It is only symbolic. But so too, the Zivotofskys argue, is the change in policy dictated by the 2002 law. If the White House website can acknowledge that Jerusalem is in Israel without undermining the administration's diplomatic position, why can't Congress, in a law governing only the administration of vital documents, compel the State Department to do the same?
The White House changed its website in an attempt to shore up its legal position by depriving the Zivotofskys of this argument. It is at least mildly deceptive, but it will succeed only if it escapes the notice of the Supreme Court.
But if the guys at the White House thought they could get away with this, they didn't read footnote 10 of Chief Justice John Roberts's opinion for the court in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (citations and extraneous quotation marks omitted): "Prior to oral argument in this case, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission's Web site stated that 'The Citizens Clean Elections Act was passed by the people of Arizona in 1998 to level the playing field when it comes to running for office.' The Web site now says that 'The Citizens Clean Elections Act was passed by the people of Arizona in 1998 to restore citizen participation and confidence in our political system.' "
The court had previously held that preventing corruption was a "compelling state interest" that justified some restrictions on political speech. But as the chief justice noted, "we have repeatedly rejected the argument that the government has a compelling state interest in 'leveling the playing field' that can justify undue burdens on political speech." The commission, a state government agency, was altering its public statements to bring them into line with its legal defense--precisely what the White House is now doing.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan rejected what she inferred to be the majority's claim "that a statement appearing on a government website in 2011 (written by who-knows-whom?) reveals what hundreds of thousands of Arizona's voters sought to do in 1998 when they enacted the Clean Elections Act by referendum." She added: "Just to state that proposition is to know it is wrong." Maybe so, but the Obama administration's position in Zivotofsky was not adopted by plebiscite, so that even if you accept Kagan's rebuttal in the Arizona case, it would not apply here.
The White House website's photo captions may not prove decisive to the outcome of Zivotofsky v. Clinton. But if Obama's men thought that pulling a stunt like this on the Web-savvy Roberts court would strengthen their case, they really are a bunch of amateurs.
Does the White House really think that Chief Justice Roberts is that slow? Maybe it does. After all, Senator Obama
voted against Roberts' confirmation. Revenge is sweet, isn't it?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, US Supreme Court
