1. In 2002, Congress passed legislation authorizing Americans born in
Jerusalem to request that “Israel” be listed as the place of birth on their
passports. The State Department declined to follow the law, citing its
longstanding policy of not taking a position on Jerusalem’s political status.
Jerusalem to request that “Israel” be listed as the place of birth on their
passports. The State Department declined to follow the law, citing its
longstanding policy of not taking a position on Jerusalem’s political status.
When sued by a U.S. citizen who invoked the statute, the Secretary of State
argued that the case presented a political question. The Supreme Court
disagreed, reasoning that courts are capable of determining whether the
statue should be given effect, or if it unconstitutionally infringes upon the
President’s authority to recognise foreign states. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132
S. Ct. 1421 (2012).
argued that the case presented a political question. The Supreme Court
disagreed, reasoning that courts are capable of determining whether the
statue should be given effect, or if it unconstitutionally infringes upon the
President’s authority to recognise foreign states. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 132
S. Ct. 1421 (2012).
Does Zivotofsky suggest that Made in the USA should
be decided differently if it was litigated today?
be decided differently if it was litigated today?
2. Should there be different standards for judicial review of
governmental actions in domestic and in foreign affairs cases? If so, what is
different about governmental actions in the foreign relations area that
justifies a reduced judicial role?
governmental actions in domestic and in foreign affairs cases? If so, what is
different about governmental actions in the foreign relations area that
justifies a reduced judicial role?
3. When determining the constitutionality of congressional-executive
agreements, should more weight be given to constitutional text or to
historical practice? Should courts or the political branches decide when
Article II processes must be followed?
agreements, should more weight be given to constitutional text or to
historical practice? Should courts or the political branches decide when
Article II processes must be followed?
