BIRTHERS TAKE NOTE

No. 10-699

 In the Supreme Court of the United States

M.B.Z., BY HIS PARENTS AND GUARDIANS ARI Z. ZIVOTOFSKY, PETITIONER

v.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE 

In May 2, 2011 a petition was granted by The United States Supreme Court for petitioners to brief and argue the following question: “Whether Section 214 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, impermissibly infringes the President’s power to recognize foreign sovereigns.  The case, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, By His Parents and Guardians, Ari Z. and Naomi Siegman Zivotofsky, Petitioner v. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, will be heard by the Judges on November 7, 2011.

The case hinges on section 214 of The Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2002, subsection (d) which reads: d) RECORD OF PLACE OF BIRTH AS ISRAEL FOR PASSPORT PURPOSES.For purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel.

Menachem Zivotofsky, was born in Jerusalem in 2002, three weeks after the passage of the Foreign Relations Act of 2002.  His parents, Ari and Naomi, filed a lawsuit after State Department officials refused to list Israel as his birthplace. 

At the time, the Bush administration said that Congress may not tell the president what to do regarding this aspect of foreign relations. The Obama administration agrees, so at issue is whether the congressional directive steps on presidential power.

When President George W. Bush signed the bill, he said he would not obey it. He said section (d), “impermissibly interferes with the president’s constitutional authority to conduct the nation’s foreign affairs and to supervise the unitary executive branch.”

A New York Times story in July said, “The case weaves together generations of conflict in the Middle East, the dueling roles of Congress and the president in the conduct of foreign affairs and the combustible topic of presidential signing statements.”

A Washington D.C. federal appeals court ruled against Zivotofsky  because they felt the conflict between the two branches of government was political and not appropriate for judicial resolution.  The Obama administration did not want the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the lower court’s ruling and filed a brief asking a writ of certiorari be denied by the court.

 “QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioner’s suit seeking to compel the Secretary of State to record “Israel” as his place of birth in his United States passport and Consular Report of Birth Abroad, instead of “Jerusalem,” when the panel unanimously agreed that the decision how to record the place of birth for a citizen born in Jerusalem in official United States government documents is committed exclusively to the Executive Branch by the Constitution.”

The Justices disagreed with the administration’s brief and granted the writ of certiorari.  They instructed both parties to address the question of whether the law, “impermissibly infringes the president’s power to recognize foreign sovereigns.”

All the fighting of power between branches of government aside, how can a person be issued a passport that only lists a city (Jerusalem) and not a country (Israel)?  Obama has already enraged the American Jewish population by calling for Israel to return to the 1967 borders.  This would be his chance for redemption.

Simply explained, the controversial question should be, “If an American citizen was born in Jerusalem, should the United States government  include “Israel” as the country of birth on the individual’s passport?”, instead of asking who has the power to decide, the President or Congress.