Supreme Court wrestles with Executive vs Legislative powers

WASHINGTON - US Supreme Court justices on Monday seemed to back the Obama administration's position that only the president can recognize foreign states, as they heard the case of a boy born in Jerusalem to American parents who want his passport to list Israel as his birthplace.

The parents of 9-year-old Menachem Zivotofsky argued that the move should be made under a 2002 law - passed weeks before Menachem was born - that included a provision allowing Israel to be listed as the place of birth on the passport of any American citizen born in Jerusalem.

At stake in the diplomatically sensitive case is whether the executive branch has exclusive control over dealings with foreign nations, or whether Congress and the courts also have a say.

While Israel calls Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital, few other states accept that status. Most countries, including the United States, maintain their embassies to Israel in Tel Aviv.

The Palestinians want East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967, as capital of the state they aim to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, alongside Israel.

Zivotofsky was born on Oct. 17, 2002, in a hospital in west Jerusalem. The State Department, applying long-standing US policy, insisted his birth certificate show Jerusalem - with no country specified - as the place of birth, not Israel as his mother requested.

Nathan Lewin, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney arguing on behalf of the boy and his parents, who attended the arguments, said Congress properly exercised its power over passports and it can control a passport's contents.

President George W. Bush signed the law, but refused to follow it on the grounds it infringed on the president's power to formulate foreign policy. The Obama administration agreed.

Source.

In general I agree with the administration on the issue of authority in matters related to foreign affairs.  Congress overstepped its bounds.  Here though is my problem.

Bush SIGNED THE LAW.  And then he issued a so called "signing statement" saying he would not abide by it.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  Someone should have given George a remedial crash course in basic civics before he was allowed to become President.  There is no such animal as a "signing statement" anywhere in the Constitution.  What Bush was clearly trying to do was give himself a line item veto, and not just over spending bills.  But once again there is no provision to be found for this in the Constitution.  Once a president signs a bill it is law... ALL OF IT.  And no, you don't get to pick and choose which parts you will abide by.  This is merely one of many reasons I think George W Bush will go down as one of our country's worst presidents.  He should have been impeached for this alone.

Sadly it appears Zero is once again demonstrating that we basically got G. W. Bush's third term on yet another subject.  Obama has  decided he too likes "signing statements."  How's that "change" we voted for working for you?