From Arutz Sheva Tuesday, Mar 27 '12, Nisan 4, 5772
“The US Supreme Court has returned to the lower court a decision whether Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky's passport can list “Jerusalem, Israel' as his place of birth.”
Seems like a simple matter doesn’t it? Can a man place on his passport, in the space required, that all applicants state it, the place of his birth? But it appears that the question is too complicated for the Judiciary to handle – which raises questions as to their ability to handle more complicated questions. As the article notes:
“The case has made its way all the way through the entire United States court system, from the district court, through the court of appeals, and up to the highest court in the land.”
“But on Monday, March 26, Supreme Court justices sidestepped the delicate issue of Menachem Zivotofsky v. Hillary Clinton, as had all the adjudicators before them.”
Specifically, the justices noted, “Congress enacted a statue providing that Americans born in Jerusalem may elect to have “Israel” listed as the place of birth on their passports. The State Department declined to follow that law, …”
OK so we have the State Department wasting tax payer money challenging a Federal law in the courts – while violating it… because they don’t feel like acknowledging the fact that Jerusalem is part of Israel. OK, so it might have once been a shared city.
But Congress said OK – the American People said OK – the President signed it into law. So the Executive also said OK. But the article said STATE had cited “ its longstanding policy of not taking a position on the political status of Jerusalem. When sued by an American who invoked that statute, the Secretary of State argued that the courts lacked authority to decide the case because it presented a political question.” and the Court of Appeals said OK.
So politics trumps LAW … and we are to believe the policy of an agency overrides the will of both the President and Congress. Thus the nation is being run by its agencies – without any regard for the laws enacted by Congress and approved by the Chief Executive.
“The family, noted the Court, did not ask for a determination of whether Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel. Rather, the case presented is simply an intention to determine whether they have the right under the law to record Jerusalem, Israel on their son's passport as his place of birth.”
The Basis of the legal debate: “At least since Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), we have recognized that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
“That duty will sometimes involve the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches,” but courts cannot avoid their responsibility merely “because the issues have political implications.”
The justices then bluntly spelled out for their colleagues in the lower courts what is next to be done:
“In this case, determining the constitutionality … involves deciding whether the statute impermissibly intrudes upon Presidential powers under the Constitution. “
GEE now here is the idiocy which has gotten us into the current recession and threatens to destroy the nation! The President signed the law! Presidential Powers were exercised in allowing the enactment into law. Did Congress bypass the Executive and direct an action by the State Department, or did they enact a law which the President – the Chief Executive and boss of the State Department – approved? That seems to be the only question.
Since the President approve the statute, Hilary Clinton is engaged in an act of TREASON! She is usurping the powers of Congress and the Chief Executive to exert the right of a bureaucrat to say what is and is not LAW – There can no be, nor should there be, anything unconstitutional in the passage of a law which an appointed bureaucrat feels politically or otherwise complicates their job.
If you are born in Jerusalem you are born in Israel – unless State want to argue who had jurisdiction on the specific day, time and specific coordinates (both latitude and longitude to the exact square foot) of the birth. If the birth was recognized as a birth IN ISRAEL – in the absence of another authority in the court asserting the individual is a citizen of their nation – Hilary is engaged in TREASON by attempting to assert bureaucratic whims over enacted law.
THE MOST HARM TO THE MOST PEOPLE
It is why Hilary could never have been President and we should even question if she is a Democrat.
She is looking very Republican on this matter.