Oh Jerusalem, in court
An appellate court has sidestepped the latest effort to draw the United States into the diplomatically vexing question of Jerusalem's status. As the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stated in an opinion issued Friday:
"That the United States expresses no official view on the thorny issue of whether Jerusalem is part of Israel has been a central and calibrated feature of every president’s foreign policy since Harry S. Truman."
The case Zivotofsky v Secretary of State summoned the long-running dispute in a new way. In brief:
In October 2002, Menachem Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem to U.S. citizens. In December 2002, Menachem’s mother applied for a U.S. passport and a Consular Report of Birth for her son at the U.S. Embassy. She requested that both documents record her son’s place of birth as “Jerusalem, Israel.”
Zivotofsky seemed to have the law on her side. Congress in the 2002 foreign aid authorization bill included language stating that "for purposes of the registration of birth...or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary [of State] shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel."
Straighforward, right? Wrong.
Then-President Bush used one of the signing statements of which he was so fond to declare the language non-binding. So the family sued. Back and fort it went, until the appellate panel Friday determined that the president has "exclusive and unreviewable constitutional power to keep the United States out of the debate over the status of Jerusalem," and that this whole dispute is a political question best decided outside of the judiciary.
Mike,
I orginally posted this question on Dion Nissenbaum's blog which referenced your blog post, but would really like a legal opinion on this and thought you might know with your legal background.
====
Isn't the statement "That the United States expresses no official view on the thorny issue of whether Jerusalem is part of Israel has been a central and calibrated feature of every president’s foreign policy since Harry S. Truman." rather disingenuous and completely excludes whether one is talking of west J'lem, east J'lem or unified Jerusalem? It assumes the 'unified Jerusalem' which is not recognized by anyone (excluding Israel itself and Micronesia).
The official U.S. State Department position is that east Jerusalem is 'occupied territory' and west Jerusalem is part of Israel proper. Matter of fact, every other nation (with the exception of Israel and Micronesia)considers east Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Syrian Golan Heights 'Occupied Territory'. This is why our embassy remains in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem.
Three decades ago, Israel unilaterally annexed east J'lem, counter to international law concerning final status, and which no nation, including the U.S. recognizes.
I'm not a legal scholar, but it appears as though our judicial branch is copping out by not simply supporting not only our own government's current position, but international law as well. It's not the issue of final status negotiations, but where the hospital is physically located - west of the armistice or 'green' line or east. Then the language of 'Jerusalem, Israel' or 'Occupied Jerusalem' is clear.
Posted by: Edie | July 13, 2009 at 01:24 PM