web analytics
March 7, 2015 / 16 Adar , 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
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C., the United States, calling for rejection of a bad nuclear deal with Iran, on March 03, 2015.
Post-Bibi Bipartisanship May Result in Congressional Ability to Review Iran Deal
Latest Indepth Stories
Ron Prosor

Values at the very heart of the UN are threatened by extremist ideologies targeting our way of life

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Anti-Semitism today focuses on Israel and the quest to delegitimize it.

Ballots for elections "made in Samaria."

Any Jew who ties his fate to Israel should be able to vote in Israel’s elections-even before aliyah

A young Moshe Meir Weiss introduces his mother, Mrs. Agnes Weiss Goldman, to Rav Moshe in 1979.

There were no airs about him. Rav Moshe was affectionately known as the Gaon of Normalcy.

Israel’s full sovereignty over a united Jerusalem is the only path for true peace in the region.

Just like Moses and Aaron, Mordechai decides to ruin the party…

The president has made clear – I can’t state this more firmly – the policy is Iran will not get a nuclear weapon.

Obama has an apparent inability to understand Islam in particular and Mid-East culture in general

Pesach is a Torah-based holiday whose fundamental observances are rooted in Torah law; Purim is a rabbinic holiday whose laws and customs are grounded in the rabbinic tradition.

In honor of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s successful speech before Congress.

Mr. Spock conveys a message with painfully stark relevance to our world today, especially in the context of PM Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.

Obama created the “partisan politics” by asking Dem. party members to avoid Bibi and his address

Enough is enough. The Jewish community has a big tent, but the NIF should have no place in it.

I vote for the right and get left-wing policy. Every. Frigging. Time.

More Articles from Editorial Board

The real issue is that in many respects the president has sought to recalibrate American values and our system of government.

Former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, provided one of the clearest and most compelling analyses we’ve seen of the importance of the prime minister’s speech.

Gone are the days when an anchorman sitting in a New York studio could, after sharing 22 minutes of carefully selected and edited news items, trumpet in stentorian tones, “And that’s the way it is.” No it wasn’t. It never was.

President Obama has frequently cautioned that Americans should take great care to avoid fomenting anti-Muslim passions in our reaction to the murderous activities regularly being perpetrated by terrorists in the name of Islam. One wonders why, though, he seems to have no concern with the potential for anti-Semitic fallout from his full-court press against Israeli […]

Typical of the administration’s milquetoast approach is the lack of any call for a substantial increase in military resources in order to crush ISIL, only a tepid mention of the need to “ultimately defeat” it.

He spent the first leg of his daylong visit to the French capital at Hyper Cacher.

In this particular case, the issue was whether the Arkansas prison system could prohibit, for security reasons, a devout Muslim’s maintaining a beard of a certain length as a matter of religious practice.

According to Natan Sharansky, director of the Jewish Agency for Israel, France was the largest source of Jewish emigration to Israel last year and he believes as many as 15,000 French Jews may make aliyah in 2015.

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: