It may be under the radar but a case will be heard in the Supreme Court this week as to whether a child born to American citizens in Jerusalem, can be issued his US passport with place of birth noted as "Israel." Presently it reads "Jerusalem" which is in violation of the standard that a country be noted as place of birth.

This case will most likely swing on whether the State Department, as part of the Executive Branch, has the Constitutional authority to recognize foreign capitals, thus overriding Congress, which passed legislation that directs the State Department to allow Americans to designate Israel if they were born in Jerusalem. This is not strictly a partisan issue, since every President since the founding of Israel in 1948, has directed State to not recognize Jerusalem as the capital.

Nonetheless, there will be some interesting dynamics going on at SCOTUS that will trump ideology and politics. Under normal circumstances, I would suspect that the Scalia wing will rule with the President but you never know. Likewise, the Jewish (ie. liberal) wing might find themselves in a dilemma. Maybe we'll find out that Ginsburg/Breyer/Kagan are closet neocons.

This one could really be fun to watch.

The US does not recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. I think the case hinges on where in J'lem the child was born. If it is in the pre-1967 borders of Israel, then West Jerusalem, Israel works. If not then there's an entirely different question regarding separation of powers. I'm not sure that the smarter members (read: not Alito or Scalia) of the Court want to be get the judiciary into the position of trying to set foreign policy. Or to override the Executive's powers in this case.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to split the baby, so to speak, especially if that baby was born in the pre-1967 portion of J'lem.

I expect Scalia to rule for Netanyahu in this case, regardless of the facts.

(11-01-2014 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm not sure that the smarter members (read: not Alito or Scalia) of the Court

Yes, resident legal expert Tom in Lazybrook (how's that discovery request in Houston coming?) considers himself qualified to opine on the intelligence of Supreme Court justices.

For actual discussion of the merits of the case. . .
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/10/how-t...ivitofsky/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...gnition-i/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...nition-ii/

And then there is this, which is a little bit embarrassing for the executive arguments.

Quote:Remarkably, the Executive Branch itself places Jerusalem in Israel for geographic identification purposes. The U.S. Board of Geographic Names, a part of the Interior Department. Its statuary purpose is to “provide for uniformity in geographic nomenclature… throughout the Federal Government.” Members of the board include, inter alia, officials from the State, Defense, and Homeland Security Departments, and the CIA.

According to the “foreign-place names decisions approved by” the Board, Jerusalem is a city in “Israel” (with the “unique name identifier” of 13535646). To be sure, the homepage of the Board’s names database prominently advises that (emphasis in original):

Quote:The geographic names in this database are provided for the guidance of and use by the Federal Government and for the information of the general public. The names, variants and associated data may not reflect the views of the United States Government on the sovereignty over geographic features.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...-to-agree/

(11-01-2014 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The US does not recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. I think the case hinges on where in J'lem the child was born. If it is in the pre-1967 borders of Israel, then West Jerusalem, Israel works. If not then there's an entirely different question regarding separation of powers. I'm not sure that the smarter members (read: not Alito or Scalia) of the Court want to be get the judiciary into the position of trying to set foreign policy. Or to override the Executive's powers in this case.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to split the baby, so to speak, especially if that baby was born in the pre-1967 portion of J'lem.

I expect Scalia to rule for Netanyahu in this case, regardless of the facts.

As I suspected, some would respond to this post reflexively and take shots at Scalia, etc.

This case is not about whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It is about separation of powers. Therefore your comment about Scalia siding with Netanyahu is about as relevant as the current score in the Wisc-Rutgers game.

Try to stick to the topic.

(11-01-2014 11:08 AM)jh Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm not sure that the smarter members (read: not Alito or Scalia) of the Court

Yes, resident legal expert Tom in Lazybrook (how's that discovery request in Houston coming?) considers himself qualified to opine on the intelligence of Supreme Court justices.

For actual discussion of the merits of the case. . .
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/10/how-t...ivitofsky/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...gnition-i/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...nition-ii/

And then there is this, which is a little bit embarrassing for the executive arguments.

Quote:Remarkably, the Executive Branch itself places Jerusalem in Israel for geographic identification purposes. The U.S. Board of Geographic Names, a part of the Interior Department. Its statuary purpose is to “provide for uniformity in geographic nomenclature… throughout the Federal Government.” Members of the board include, inter alia, officials from the State, Defense, and Homeland Security Departments, and the CIA.

According to the “foreign-place names decisions approved by” the Board, Jerusalem is a city in “Israel” (with the “unique name identifier” of 13535646). To be sure, the homepage of the Board’s names database prominently advises that (emphasis in original):

Quote:The geographic names in this database are provided for the guidance of and use by the Federal Government and for the information of the general public. The names, variants and associated data may not reflect the views of the United States Government on the sovereignty over geographic features.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...-to-agree/

The discovery requests were valid. They were also not needed, as the plaintiffs really don't have much of a case.

I'll let you get back to supporting the claims of Tony (I paid David Duke 80 grand and then spent 25 grand supporting genocide against Gay persons in Uganda) Perkins, Mike (I support rounding up all HIV positive persons and putting them in jailcamps) Huckabee, etc's. claims of being the victims of 'persecution'..

And then there's Riggle (I don't live in Houston, but I want to make the voters of another town spend 10 million bucks on a divisive referendum when we didn't follow the rules) Welsh (same), etc.

It would have been nice to see all the emails between Riggle and Welsh to the 'pawns' in East Houston (most of whom have insignificant congregations) setting this all up.

---

There is a difference between the State Department and other governmental agencies.

(11-01-2014 11:56 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The US does not recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. I think the case hinges on where in J'lem the child was born. If it is in the pre-1967 borders of Israel, then West Jerusalem, Israel works. If not then there's an entirely different question regarding separation of powers. I'm not sure that the smarter members (read: not Alito or Scalia) of the Court want to be get the judiciary into the position of trying to set foreign policy. Or to override the Executive's powers in this case.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to split the baby, so to speak, especially if that baby was born in the pre-1967 portion of J'lem.

I expect Scalia to rule for Netanyahu in this case, regardless of the facts.

As I suspected, some would respond to this post reflexively and take shots at Scalia, etc.

This case is not about whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It is about separation of powers. Therefore your comment about Scalia siding with Netanyahu is about as relevant as the current score in the Wisc-Rutgers game.

Try to stick to the topic.

Lets see how Scalia rules. If he's ruling consistent with his stated judicial beliefs, he'd rule against Bibi. I think Scalia will rule 'politically' in this case.

This case 100% about Congress trying to make foreign policy.

Issue spotting, some folks can't do it.

(11-01-2014 11:08 AM)jh Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm not sure that the smarter members (read: not Alito or Scalia) of the Court

Yes, resident legal expert Tom in Lazybrook (how's that discovery request in Houston coming?) considers himself qualified to opine on the intelligence of Supreme Court justices.

For actual discussion of the merits of the case. . .
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/10/how-t...ivitofsky/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...gnition-i/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...t-recognit

And then there is this, which is a little bit embarrassing for the executive arguments.

Quote:Remarkably, the Executive Branch itself places Jerusalem in Israel for geographic identification purposes. The U.S. Board of Geographic Names, a part of the Interior Department. Its statuary purpose is to “provide for uniformity in geographic nomenclature… throughout the Federal Government.” Members of the board include, inter alia, officials from the State, Defense, and Homeland Security Departments, and the CIA.

According to the “foreign-place names decisions approved by” the Board, Jerusalem is a city in “Israel” (with the “unique name identifier” of 13535646). To be sure, the homepage of the Board’s names database prominently advises that (emphasis in original):

Quote:The geographic names in this database are provided for the guidance of and use by the Federal Government and for the information of the general public. The names, variants and associated data may not reflect the views of the United States Government on the sovereignty over geographic features.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...-to-agree/

The major Encyclopedia and Dictionary list Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel.
The 1967 borders or what part of Jerusalem the kid was born in makes no difference.

(11-01-2014 06:43 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 11:08 AM)jh Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm not sure that the smarter members (read: not Alito or Scalia) of the Court

Yes, resident legal expert Tom in Lazybrook (how's that discovery request in Houston coming?) considers himself qualified to opine on the intelligence of Supreme Court justices.

For actual discussion of the merits of the case. . .
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/10/how-t...ivitofsky/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...gnition-i/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...t-recognit

And then there is this, which is a little bit embarrassing for the executive arguments.

Quote:Remarkably, the Executive Branch itself places Jerusalem in Israel for geographic identification purposes. The U.S. Board of Geographic Names, a part of the Interior Department. Its statuary purpose is to “provide for uniformity in geographic nomenclature… throughout the Federal Government.” Members of the board include, inter alia, officials from the State, Defense, and Homeland Security Departments, and the CIA.

According to the “foreign-place names decisions approved by” the Board, Jerusalem is a city in “Israel” (with the “unique name identifier” of 13535646). To be sure, the homepage of the Board’s names database prominently advises that (emphasis in original):

Quote:The geographic names in this database are provided for the guidance of and use by the Federal Government and for the information of the general public. The names, variants and associated data may not reflect the views of the United States Government on the sovereignty over geographic features.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...-to-agree/

The major Encyclopedia and Dictionary list Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel.
The 1967 borders or what part of Jerusalem the kid was born in makes no difference.

How many countries have an embassy (not a consulate) in J'lem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem

Money quote "no nation maintains an embassy in J'lem".

This is just an attempt by the neocons to force the US to recognize a land grab.

The US Embassy is in Tel Aviv. It will remain there.

Bibi isn't helping anyone, including Israel, with his settlements. There's no need for the US to take a stand that will earn us the scorn of the entire world and will complicate US interests in non-recognition of land grabs by other nations that we are not friendly with (i.e., Russia).

Tel Aviv and Haifa, which is the 'face' of Israel shown to the world, not the intolerant hardliners in Hebron and Mea Sharim, are perfectly happy with the US State Department policy in this matter.

The State Department has our back on this one. I wish the neocons would come up with an appropriate reason why offending the world for no benefit would serve any US strategic purpose.

I suppose its all part of globalization. I see Macau money all over this.

If the US wanted to split the baby, they could recognize West J'lem as the capitol. The Knesset is definately in pre-1967 J'lem (I've been to it by the way). But that would still be epically stupid and would gain nothing for Israel and would complicate US foreign policy objectives shared by Republican and Democratic adminstrations, by the way.

(11-01-2014 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The US does not recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. I think the case hinges on where in J'lem the child was born. If it is in the pre-1967 borders of Israel, then West Jerusalem, Israel works. If not then there's an entirely different question regarding separation of powers. I'm not sure that the smarter members (read: not Alito or Scalia) of the Court want to be get the judiciary into the position of trying to set foreign policy. Or to override the Executive's powers in this case.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to split the baby, so to speak, especially if that baby was born in the pre-1967 portion of J'lem.

I expect Scalia to rule for Netanyahu in this case, regardless of the facts.

Please provide evidence that the above isn't a totally stupid comment.

The location of the Capitol is irrelevant in this case. I don't get why anybody continues to talk about it.

(11-01-2014 07:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 06:43 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 11:08 AM)jh Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm not sure that the smarter members (read: not Alito or Scalia) of the Court

Yes, resident legal expert Tom in Lazybrook (how's that discovery request in Houston coming?) considers himself qualified to opine on the intelligence of Supreme Court justices.h

For actual discussion of the merits of the case. . .
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/10/how-t...gnition-i/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...t-recognit

And then there is this, which is a little bit embarrassing for the executive arguments.

Quote:Remarkably, the Executive Branch itself places Jerusalem in Israel for geographic identification purposes. The U.S. Board of Geographic Names, a part of the Interior Department. Its statuary purpose is to “provide for uniformity in geographic nomenclature… throughout the Federal Government.” Members of the board include, inter alia, officials from the State, Defense, and Homeland Security Departments, and the CIA.

According to the “foreign-place names decisions approved by” the Board, Jerusalem is a city in “Israel” (with the “unique name identifier” of 13535646). To be sure, the homepage of the Board’s names database prominently advises that (emphasis in original):

Quote:The geographic names in this database are provided for the guidance of and use by the Federal Government and for the information of the general public. The names, variants and associated data may not reflect the views of the United States Government on the sovereignty over geographic features.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...-to-agree/

The major Encyclopedia and Dictionary list Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel.
The 1967 borders or what part of Jerusalem the kid was born in makes no difference.

How many countries have an embassy (not a consulate) in J'lem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem

Money quote "no nation maintains an embassy in J'lem".

This is just an attempt by the neocons to force the US to recognize a land grab.

The US Embassy is in Tel Aviv. It will remain there.

Bibi isn't helping anyone, including Israel, with his settlements. There's no need for the US to take a stand that will earn us the scorn of the entire world and will complicate US interests in non-recognition of land grabs by other nations that we are not friendly with (i.e., Russia).

Tel Aviv and Haifa, which is the 'face' of Israel shown to the world, not the intolerant hardliners in Hebron and Mea Sharim, are perfectly happy with the US State Department policy in this matter.

The State Department has our back on this one. I wish the neocons would come up with an appropriate reason why offending the world for no benefit would serve any US strategic purpose.

I suppose its all part of globalization. I see Macau money all over this.

If the US wanted to split the baby, they could recognize West J'lem as the capitol. The Knesset is definately in pre-1967 J'lem (I've been to it by the way). But that would still be epically stupid and would gain nothing for Israel and would complicate US foreign policy objectives shared by Republican and Democratic adminstrations, by the way.

Wow! You've actua BEEN to Israel? Well that makes you the best expert on this board about the topic I'm sure.
I'd love to hear your expert analysis of the '67 war was a "land grab"
And how recognizing Tel Aviv isn't globalization but recognizing Jerusalem IS globalization.
Or why, 'Next Year in Tel Aviv' doesn't hold the same sway on Israeli's as 'Next Year in Jerusalem.

(11-01-2014 07:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The location of the Capitol is irrelevant in this case. I don't get why anybody continues to talk about it.

Because the actual issue is complicated and a difficult decision so its easier to pretend the case is about something else so you can take pot shots at justices you don't like? Just a guess.

(11-01-2014 09:39 PM)jh Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 07:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The location of the Capitol is irrelevant in this case. I don't get why anybody continues to talk about it.

Because the actual issue is complicated and a difficult decision so its easier to pretend the case is about something else so you can take pot shots at justices you don't like? Just a guess.

Again, lets see how Scalia rules on separation of powers.

(11-01-2014 08:34 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 07:12 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 06:43 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 11:08 AM)jh Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm not sure that the smarter members (read: not Alito or Scalia) of the Court

Yes, resident legal expert Tom in Lazybrook (how's that discovery request in Houston coming?) considers himself qualified to opine on the intelligence of Supreme Court justices.h

For actual discussion of the merits of the case. . .
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/10/how-t...gnition-i/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...t-recognit

And then there is this, which is a little bit embarrassing for the executive arguments.

Quote:Remarkably, the Executive Branch itself places Jerusalem in Israel for geographic identification purposes. The U.S. Board of Geographic Names, a part of the Interior Department. Its statuary purpose is to “provide for uniformity in geographic nomenclature… throughout the Federal Government.” Members of the board include, inter alia, officials from the State, Defense, and Homeland Security Departments, and the CIA.

According to the “foreign-place names decisions approved by” the Board, Jerusalem is a city in “Israel” (with the “unique name identifier” of 13535646). To be sure, the homepage of the Board’s names database prominently advises that (emphasis in original):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...-to-agree/

The major Encyclopedia and Dictionary list Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel.
The 1967 borders or what part of Jerusalem the kid was born in makes no difference.

How many countries have an embassy (not a consulate) in J'lem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem

Money quote "no nation maintains an embassy in J'lem".

This is just an attempt by the neocons to force the US to recognize a land grab.

The US Embassy is in Tel Aviv. It will remain there.

Bibi isn't helping anyone, including Israel, with his settlements. There's no need for the US to take a stand that will earn us the scorn of the entire world and will complicate US interests in non-recognition of land grabs by other nations that we are not friendly with (i.e., Russia).

Tel Aviv and Haifa, which is the 'face' of Israel shown to the world, not the intolerant hardliners in Hebron and Mea Sharim, are perfectly happy with the US State Department policy in this matter.

The State Department has our back on this one. I wish the neocons would come up with an appropriate reason why offending the world for no benefit would serve any US strategic purpose.

I suppose its all part of globalization. I see Macau money all over this.

If the US wanted to split the baby, they could recognize West J'lem as the capitol. The Knesset is definately in pre-1967 J'lem (I've been to it by the way). But that would still be epically stupid and would gain nothing for Israel and would complicate US foreign policy objectives shared by Republican and Democratic adminstrations, by the way.

Wow! You've actua BEEN to Israel? Well that makes you the best expert on this board about the topic I'm sure.
I'd love to hear your expert analysis of the '67 war was a "land grab"
And how recognizing Tel Aviv isn't globalization but recognizing Jerusalem IS globalization.
Or why, 'Next Year in Tel Aviv' doesn't hold the same sway on Israeli's as 'Next Year in Jerusalem.

The land grab is going on now with the expanded settlements in the West Bank and East J'lem.

There is no benefit for the US to recognize J'lem as 100% Israeli as a matter of diplomatic recognition (as opposed to de facto recognition). Doing so will harm the US greatly, for no gain for the US or Israel.

(11-02-2014 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 09:39 PM)jh Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 07:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The location of the Capitol is irrelevant in this case. I don't get why anybody continues to talk about it.

Because the actual issue is complicated and a difficult decision so its easier to pretend the case is about something else so you can take pot shots at justices you don't like? Just a guess.

Again, lets see how Scalia rules on separation of powers.

Again? What does the separation of powers have to do with the capital of Israel? Virtually your entire argument in this thread is irrelevant. The provision under challenge has nothing to do with either naming Jerusalem the capital of Israel or moving the embassy there.

And stop pretending that this is an easy case with a clear cut winner. It's not. This is from a supporter of finding for the executive.

Quote:Zivotofsky is an important case because it appears to require the Supreme Court to address the scope of the President’s exclusive foreign relations power vis a vis Congress. This is a very hard question, rarely addressed by the Court, about which the relevant sources (text, original meaning, historical practice) are, in my view, unclear.

Congress has a specifically enumerated power to regulate foreign commerce. That might have been enough to justify a passport requirement at the time of the founding, but the definition of commerce has certainly been expanded enough since then to include it now. The executive has an unenumerated power to be the sole voice of American foreign policy. How that will balance in this particular case is not at all clear.

(11-02-2014 10:45 AM)jh Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 09:39 PM)jh Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 07:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The location of the Capitol is irrelevant in this case. I don't get why anybody continues to talk about it.

Because the actual issue is complicated and a difficult decision so its easier to pretend the case is about something else so you can take pot shots at justices you don't like? Just a guess.

Again, lets see how Scalia rules on separation of powers.

Again? What does the separation of powers have to do with the capital of Israel? Virtually your entire argument in this thread is irrelevant. The provision under challenge has nothing to do with either naming Jerusalem the capital of Israel or moving the embassy there.

And stop pretending that this is an easy case with a clear cut winner. It's not. This is from a supporter of finding for the executive.

Quote:Zivotofsky is an important case because it appears to require the Supreme Court to address the scope of the President’s exclusive foreign relations power vis a vis Congress. This is a very hard question, rarely addressed by the Court, about which the relevant sources (text, original meaning, historical practice) are, in my view, unclear.

Congress has a specifically enumerated power to regulate foreign commerce. That might have been enough to justify a passport requirement at the time of the founding, but the definition of commerce has certainly been expanded enough since then to include it now. The executive has an unenumerated power to be the sole voice of American foreign policy. How that will balance in this particular case is not at all clear.

We all know what the real motivation of the case is here. An attempt by supporters of a foreign nation to attempt to compel US recognition of something that no executive, Republican or Democrat has done.

If Adelson and the neo-cons win this one, it would create a huge and benefitless PR nightmare for the US, frustrate US foreign policy initiatives elsewhere, complicate our relations in the Middle East, encourage further bad behavior by Israel, and make it much more difficult for the executive to conduct foreign policy consistent with the Constitution.

Tom will say anything, make up anything, etc to try to prove a point. It's best to just ignore him.

(11-02-2014 11:49 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We all know what the real motivation of the case is here. An attempt by supporters of a foreign nation to attempt to compel US recognition of something that no executive, Republican or Democrat has done.

Quote:If Adelson and the neo-cons win this one, it would create a huge and benefitless PR nightmare for the US, frustrate US foreign policy initiatives elsewhere, complicate our relations in the Middle East, encourage further bad behavior by Israel, and make it much more difficult for the executive to conduct foreign policy consistent with the Constitution.

No, it wouldn't. It would allow people born in Jerusalem to decide whether or not they wanted to have "Jerusalem, Israel" (or the other order) on their passports. The executive branch's own standards list Jerusalem as being in Israel. This would just be one more application of that. Hardly the oncoming storm.

(11-02-2014 10:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The land grab is going on now with the expanded settlements in the West Bank and East J'lem.

There is no benefit for the US to recognize J'lem as 100% Israeli as a matter of diplomatic recognition (as opposed to de facto recognition). Doing so will harm the US greatly, for no gain for the US or Israel.

It's already Israeli land by virtue of war waged on them by other Countries, so I'm not sure how that is a land grab. Who is being displaced? How can you grab something that is already yours?
And if Jerusalem ISNT 100% in Israel, what other Country is it in? Are you saying it is Jordanian?
Israel has already tried vacating settlements to appease World opinion but to no avail. In a twist of irony Israel has no issue with peaceful Palestinians living in Israel, but the Palestinians woupdate allow any Israeli's to live within their territories.