Last week, the Supreme Court heard the case of Ari Zivotofsky, a boy born in Jerusalem whose parents want his country of birth to be listed on his passport. (It currently reads only “Jerusalem.”) The legalities of the case are straightforward: Congress passed a law requiring that such passports read “Jerusalem, Israel”; the executive branch has ignored the law, claiming management of these matters as its prerogative. At issue here, argues Yishai Schwartz, is whether Congress supervises foreign policy, while allowing considerable discretion to the executive, or the president’s power in foreign affairs is absolute. It would be good, writes Schwartz, for the Court to make clear that the Constitution establishes the former view.
On Monday, the Court will have the opportunity to finally weigh these two views of presidential power. The case could not come at a more opportune time. President Obama, especially, has pushed his independent war-making powers to (and some would say beyond) their outer limits. He has stared down congressional hawks over Iran, and may soon try to loosen sanctions unilaterally. Congress and the courts must reassert themselves. This case, where the president is acting in defiance of explicit congressional legislation and where his power is at its “lowest ebb,” is the ideal means to do so.
Read more on New Republic: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120081/jerusalem-passport-case-can-check-presidents-foreign-affairs-power