web analytics
August 3, 2015 / 18 Av, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


The Zivotofsky Case And U.S. Foreign Policy

The Supreme Court has yet to deliver a final word on whether American citizens born in Jerusalem can have their passports list “Israel” as their place of birth if they so choose. Last week, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the case of Benjamin Zivotofsky, invalidated a federal law authorizing such recordation on the grounds that the president has exclusive power to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States.

The Zivotofskys’ lawyer, noted constitutional litigator Nathan Lewin, has said he will pursue a decision from the Supreme Court. In the meantime, we think a short exploration of who controls U.S. foreign policy is in order.

Since the beginning of the republic, Congress has had a constitutional role to play in the area of foreign affairs and it has done so over the years. (This is not to even consider the plausible argument that the authorization by Congress of a particular listing on a passport by an American citizen is hardly involvement in the foreign affairs of the nation.)

As every school child should know, the Constitution grants Congress the “power of the purse” – that is, it is the congressional role to determine how, when and if to fund presidential initiatives. Also, while the Constitution dubs the president the “commander in chief,” it also specifically grants to Congress the general power to declare war and to raise and support the armed forces.

Two prominent examples of how this has played out are the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s and the end of the Vietnam War.

The U.S. Neutrality Acts forbade arms sales to belligerent nations except on a “cash and carry” basis. Yet prior to the U.S. entering World War II, the British were running low on money in their fight against Hitler. President Roosevelt wanted to provide weapons to Britain and indeed had called for America to become the “Arsenal of Democracy.” Isolationist lawmakers, however, insisted on strict adherence to the neutrality laws they had pushed through Congress. So Mr. Roosevelt came up with the idea of “lend-lease.” A law containing certain compromises the president had to make to accommodate the isolationists was enacted in 1941. That law permitted the president to “sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the president deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article.”

One can hardly think of a more profound expression of congressional power in the area of American foreign policy than its principal role in the lend-lease episode – first in the reach of the neutrality laws and then the Lend Lease law itself, which affected the course of World War II, world history and more particularly America’s role in the international arena.

Similarly, the fractious war in Vietnam, one of the most debated foreign policy issues in American history, came to an end when Congress simply refused to continue funding it. More recently, in connection with American military actions in the Middle East, the War Powers Act has continued to loom large in terms of congressional restraints on presidential action.

There are many more examples that could be cited. The point is that the idea of foreign affairs being the exclusive prerogative of the president is one of those misleading myths about the American way of government. And if that’s the case even when it comes to declaring and conducting wars, it is surely so when Congressional action may be indirectly politically supportive of a U.S. ally.

About the Author:


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “The Zivotofsky Case And U.S. Foreign Policy”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
Jewish and Muslim bless a crowd of hundreds at a special prayer rally at Gush Etzion junction.
Jews, Arabs Unite to Underline Co-existence in Gush Etzion
Latest Indepth Stories
lahore

I sought a Muslim group that claims to preach a peaceful and accepting posture of Islam, Ahmadiyya

Eishet Chayil

While Orthodox men are encouraged to achieve and celebrated for it, Orthodox women too often are not

Jonathan Pollard.

Jonathan remember, as long as you’re denied your right to come home to Israel you’re still in prison

Inside of the home burned in the Prce Tag attack in the village of Duma.

Reports of a dead baby, a devastated family, and indications of a gloating attacker.

“Yesha” and Binyamin Regional Council leaders said the attack “is not the path of Jews in Judea and Samaria.”

The occasion? The rarely performed mitzvah of pidyon peter chamor: Redemption of a firstborn donkey.

American leftists have a pathological self-inflicted blindness to the dangers of political Islam

Hillary should THANK Trump; By dominating the news he’s overshadowed the implosion of her campaign

Hard to remember when Jewish youth were so hostile to their heritage as they are on campuses today.

Names of the enablers of Iran’s Nuclear weapons will be added next to Hitler’s on the list of infamy

By most accounts, the one person with the political muscle to swing enough Democratic votes to override a veto is Sen. Schumer.

The next day, in a speech in New York to the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Kerry substantially upped the ante.

In Israel, the judiciary has established itself as superior to ALL other branches of the government.

The Fifteenth Day of the month of Av became a day of national rejoicing. The moment that had seemed hopeless became the moment of Redemption.

More Articles from Editorial Board

The next day, in a speech in New York to the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Kerry substantially upped the ante.

Mr. Kerry may or may not be genuinely disturbed and troubled by the Iranian leader’s continued belligerence. With the deal completed, that’s not even a matter of concern anymore.

Mr. Silver’s legislation changed the primary date to April 19, which avoids any conflict. And, we are happy to say, he received the support of Republicans in the legislature for changing the date.

The issue of the Chief Rabbinate’s control over conversions and other life-cycle matters has long been a contentious one.

Can adoption agencies limit the placement of children to heterosexual couples only?

The court’s finding that the president has exclusive jurisdiction in recognizing foreign countries might have been be apt if the issue at hand were a congressional attempt to grant recognition to “Palestine” as a state.

It wasn’t too long ago that Mr. Erdogan, in his determination to burnish Turkey’s credentials as an Islamist state at the cost of the secularism that had brought much economic and political success to Turkey, upended his country’s decades-long cooperative relationship with Israel.

Does the pope really believe that Father Dehon’s destructive anti-Jewish calumnies do not disqualify him from the highest honor of the Catholic Church because in his time everyone did it?

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/the-zivotofsky-case-and-u-s-foreign-policy/2013/07/31/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: