December 1, 2011

POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 12/1, the class handed in the Schroeder case briefs, and we went over them. I distributed one handout, hypotheticals which can be used to test which facts were the key ones for the Court. I plan to hand back those Schroeder case briefs on Tuesday. We will also get over the previously assigned Bohlander case on Tuesday. The additional assignment for Tuesday 12/6 is to read the Edwards case on p. 157 of the text.

POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 12/1, the class had our own oral argument in the Zivotofsky v. Clinton case. Following is a summary of that oral argument. The assignment for Tuesday 12/6 is to prepare for a judicial conference on the case. The class will share their opinions, try to persuade others, and then vote on how the case will be decided. This vote will form the basis of the final paper assignment, which will be to write an opinion, which will be some form of majority, concurrence, and dissent.

December 1, 2011
ORAL ARGUMENT OF 10-699, ZIVOTOFSKY V. CLINTON
Question 1 (to Clinton advocates): In Israel, there is only one international airport. It was said by government advocates that people would be offended by putting Jerusalem, Israel on passports. My question is whom would it offend in this case? Who would know?
Answer 1: It would offend Palestinians, because there is recognition that Jerusalem is Israel’s territory, and distinctly not Palestine’s. There may be Palestinians traveling through Israel, who are from Jerusalem, and it would identify them as being born in Israel. This land is at dispute between these two different countries. Recognizing the city as distinctly being on one side is playing favorites. This court’s decision will be made public immediately; this information is not private. Everyone could know.

Question 2 (to Clinton advocates): With the executive not wanting or not recognizing the capital of Israel being Jerusalem, isn’t it by default saying that it doesn’t belong to Israel and instead belongs to Palestine?
Answer 2: We believe that the United States should see Jerusalem as neutral, as controlled by neither Palestine nor Israel. Put neither Israel nor Palestine on the passport

Question 3 (To Clinton advocates): Question 4: Do you think the President is the one who should make the decision? It could change every four years. Even the neutrality you suggest is dependent upon future president’s reaffirming it.
Answer 3: We do support the idea that the President should decide. We are trying to maintain diplomatic ties with all countries. I think it is an executive decision. If we stay neutral, we can let them take care of it themselves. It is the position we are in now, and we feel that staying neutral is the best course of action. The executive branch is the best choice when dealing with volatile situations because he doesn’t have to deal with the bureaucracy of a congressional body.

Question 4 (to Clinton advocates): How do Palestinians have an argument when they aren’t recognized as a state? How are you giving a choice if Israel is recognized and Palestine is not? Isn’t cutting funding for a branch of the UN for their recognition of Palestine a bigger show of support than listing a city on a passport?
Answer 4: Just because we don’t recognize Palestine as a state, that doesn’t mean it isn’t an area with a civilization. It doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous. We want to stay neutral, so we aren’t picking favorites or taking sides, especially in the Middle East. As far as the cutting of the UN branch’s funding, it’s debatable if that is a bigger show of choosing sides.

Question 5: (to Clinton advocates) Do you think Congress has the power of recognition?
Answer 5: No we do not.

Question 6: (to Zivotofsky advocates) What’s the role of Congress in the decision-making process? Congress has exercised power over passports before.
Answer 6: Congress intentionally gave some power to the president, under the assumption that the President has the power to recognize foreign nations.

Question 7: (to Zivotofsky advocates) What about the rest of the world? Is this a bigger reflection about our foreign policy? What happens when foreign airports see these passports?
Answer 7: We are trying to give people a choice. We aren’t trying to decide what Israel owns and what they don’t own. We are giving them the opportunity to say they are from Israel, which they could use in place of Jerusalem on their passports.

Question 8: (to Zivotofsky advocates) What is the line between Presidential and Legislative power? Where does it fall? Would Congress be able to recognize states?
Answer 8: We do believe that this falls within Congress’ power. We aren’t implying that Congress should have full power over foreign relations. The executive has power when it comes to foreign policy. We are looking to maintain recognition.

Question 9: (to Zivotofsky advocates) This isn’t just an Israel / Palestine issue, this passport can travel the world. This is a reflection on our foreign policy to the entire world.
Answer 9: It’s up to the individual American citizen. The passport wouldn’t be offensive; it would only read “Israel”.

Question 10 (to Zivotofsky advocates): In your ideal ruling what is the line between the President and Congress on the issue of passports?
Answer 10: Congress has all power over passports.