Supreme Court confronts a trove of constitutional questions in case involving passport law

[alp227]

Source: Wash. Post

If landmark Supreme Court rulings sometimes come in unlikely cases, the justices’ consideration Monday of a law that gives 50,000 Americans born in Jerusalem the option of listing “Israel” as their birthplace seems to fit the bill.

In a little more than an hour, lawyers and the justices debated whether the president has sole authority to guide the nation’s foreign policy, whether Congress is an equal — or perhaps superior— partner and whether the Supreme Court even has a role to play in sorting it out.

The examination began with George Washington, included George W. Bush and his successor — who on this subject are united— and touched on the sensitive subject of Middle East relations.

The justices seemed to indicate in their questioning that the executive branch had the upper hand, although perhaps not to the extent that the Obama administration thinks.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-confronts-a-trove-of-constitutional-questions-in-case-involving-passport-law/2011/11/07/gIQA4ay6wM_story.html

[Demeter]

1. They have nothing better to do?

shakes head sadly

[hack89]

3. The underlying issue is of critical importance

does the Constitution give the President the power to ignore legislation that may infringe on his power to conduct foreign policy? The specific case may be trivial but the underlying principle is a fundamental constitution issue.

[WheelWalker]

4. I agree with you. The question is not frivolous.

[WheelWalker]

5. But you must admit, you would have had a different view in 1969,

I think.

[WheelWalker]

6. I would certainly hope so !!

[Little Tich]

7. From what I understand, the legislation is an attempt to usurp presidential powers.

The congress should not dictate foreign policy.

[Demeter]

9. Yes, the Constitution DOES give Congress the Powers to LImit the President

especially when he goes off and does hare-brained stuff. And NO, the President isn't a monarch and cannot ignore Congressional limits on his powers.

[hack89]

10. But until the Supreme Court draws the delimiting lines

it is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. The Constitution is full of generalities - the reams of Constitutional case law indicate just how many specifics must be filled in.

[plumbob]

2. About the stupidest thing I've seen lately.

If this is the most important problem facing these folks' lives, they should rejoice! They've got it made.

Meanwhile, back in the USA, 25 million Americans, no matter where they were born, want jobs and can't get them.

Never mind the underemployed.

Never mind the uninsured.

Never mind the foreclosed.

Never mind the homeless.

[No Elephants]

8. In fairness--and I hate being fair to this SCOTUS--it is not the job of the SCOTUS to fix joblessnes

or homelessness or hunger. Those things are for Congress and the President.

It is the job of the SCOTUS to decide cases and controversies involving federal law, including the Constitution, that properly come before it.

[plumbob]

11. Oh, I agree that the court hears cases before it. I was saying that

the people bringing the case have no worries in the world while millions of others do not have the luxury of agonizing and suing over one word on their passport.