After 13 years, the Supreme Court has reversed a controversial law passed by Congress back in 2002.  The issue with the law is that it gave American citizens born in Jerusalem the option to list Israel as their official country of birth on their American passports and birth certificates. Seeing that the recognition of foreign nations is entirely a political policy condition, the Supreme Court has decided that Congress should never have had the authority to make a law of recognition as they did in 2002 and therefore have struck it down, leaving powers of recognition to the president.

The outdated law previously stipulated that:

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.

The law reversal stems from the prominent Zivotofsky v. Kerry case. More than a decade ago, the Zivotofsky family filed suit against the ­­­­­­State Department after they were denied the option to list Jerusalem, Israel as the place of birth for their newborn son.

While under the separation of powers Congress does indeed play a vital component in making laws, major decisions on  nation recognition has historically been left to the Executive branch. Looking back at  precedent, it should be noted that the Supreme Court has allocated the power and exclusivity of recognizing a nation as being a privilege exclusively for the President.

The president has taken those absolute measures as a result of Congress accepting the recognition of power as exclusive of his office, and at times even defending the President’s constitutional prerogative. Additionally, the Executive branch often has access to confidential information that the legislative branch does not.

Foreign sovereignty expert Juan Basombrio, who is the Co-Chair of Dorsey & Whitney’s International Law Group, commented on the Supreme Court’s decision in a press release saying:

Expressly recognizing that the status of Jerusalem is ‘a delicate subject,’ the Supreme Court has relied on Separation of Powers principles to strike-down a United States statute, enacted by Congress in 2002, which conflicted with State Department policy.  The Supreme Court has held that the question of who has sovereignty over Jerusalem must not be decided by the Congress or the Courts, but is within the purview of the Executive Branch, which has indicated that this is a matter to be resolved ‘not unilaterally but in consultation with all concerned.’  Today’s decision confirms former President George W. Bush’s statement, at the time of enactment of the referenced statute, that ‘U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed.’

Monday’s decision marks the end of an era of uncertainty over the loophole in the conflicting law that enabled American citizens born abroad to claim Israel as their country of identity. Basombrio makes a valid claim as he states that the decision should not involve American courts or Congress, granted that there are other political actors and nations involved; therefore the argument and decision should always remain with the Executive branch.

This decision is important because it demonstrates to the citizens of Jerusalem, as well as the rest of the world, that the U.S. will not be dragged into the identity crisis. Whereas the U.S. is often known for mediating terms between other nations, this time that is not the case. In reversing a 13-year clause, the Supreme Court has sent a message to Israel that the U.S. has no interest in intervening until the nations involved in the identity dispute resolve their issue.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Born in Israel? Not on Your American Passport appeared first on Law Street.

Americans must abide by governing laws at a variety of levels throughout the country. Aside from the U.S. Constitution, each state has its own constitution further detailing the everyday relations between the state government and the people. But what about international law? Can we be affected as individuals by agreements the United States has entered into with foreign countries? Although it may seem a little far fetched, these questions have come up time and again in our court system. You may be surprised by how international law can affect you.

International Law in America

Overview

Two sources primarily make up international law: international agreements and customary practice. In adherence to U.S. law, international agreements can be established by entering into a treaty or an executive agreement. The executive branch has authority over treaties and executive agreements, but treaties need the consent of Congress as well. While Congress may be part of a joint agreement between the executive branch and Congress, that is not necessary; the president is only required to notify Congress of an upcoming executive order. Treaties and executive agreements may or may not be self-executing. Non-self-executing treaties and executive agreements do not immediately establish U.S. law, but evoke a promise to enact domestic legislation in order to enforce them in a timely fashion.

The strength of international law within the U.S. court system depends on a variety of circumstances. Self-executing treaties and executive treaties are generally considered to have equal status to federal law, superior status to state law, and inferior status to the Constitution. Generally speaking, non-self-executing agreements have limited strength. The question still remains whether implemented legislation required from these agreements can be reviewed for validity by the Supreme Court.

The second source of international law is customary international practice. Customary international law is essentially general practice–for example genocide has been forbidden by common practice even before it was codified. It is generally understood that U.S. statutes that conflict with customary international practice will reign supreme, although that phenomenon is relatively rare.

What is the Treaty Power?

The Constitution designates that the President has the authority to sign treaties “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” and a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The treaty power maintains our system of checks and balances and makes passing a treaty a relatively hard process. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution calls treaties “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

The U.S. is governed by both federal and state authority, and jurisdiction is established by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment reserves all power to the states when not specifically delegated otherwise or specifically prohibited in the Constitution. So federal authority can ratify a treaty. But what happens when the laws meant to implement the treaty overstep into state jurisdiction? Technically, that could be increasing Congress’ powers. These kinds of inconsistencies make the integration of international law even more of a gray area.

What is the Necessary and Proper Clause?

The clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, under Article 1 of the Constitution empowers Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” The Necessary and Proper Clause grants the federal government power to govern outside its set natural jurisdiction when required to enforce federal laws. This clause is specifically used to justify implemented legislation in enforcing international treaties and executive agreement.

Here is a quick video explaining the clause with regard to the 10th Amendment.

These are, of course, not the only aspects of American law that affect the application of international law, but they are the ones that are most often discussed and considered when attempting to determine the scope of that application.

Case Study: Bond v. United States

In some ways, this case is more apt for a soap opera than the U.S. Supreme Court, but very important legal questions were hidden under the dramatics. In this case, international policy implicitly affected a single person. An individual right, specifically the 10th Amendment, was called into question. In an even rarer scenario, the case was brought before the Supreme Court twice. The first question posed to the Supreme Court was whether we can challenge international laws (treaties) as individuals using our individual rights and the 10th Amendment? The second, can the Supreme Court deem unconstitutional implemented legislation brought on by international law?

Summary of the Initial Case

In Lansdale, Pennsylvania, Carol Bond discovered that her friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant from an affair with her husband, Clifford Bond. In a flare of passion, she vowed revenge. Bond is a trained microbiologist, and at the time worked for the chemical manufacturer Rohm and Haas. She took advantage of her connection to steal 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine from Rohm and Haas and ordered potassium dichromate over Amazon. The chemicals can be poisonous with minimal topical contact. Over the course of at least 24 attempts, Bond spread the chemicals on Haynes’ house and car door handles and mailbox. Fortunately, Haynes was often able to spot the chemicals from noticeable color distortions and only suffered from a mild hand burn that was cleaned with water.

After several attempts to contact local police to no avail, Haynes brought the matter to federal officers of the Postal Service. At the culmination of the investigation, Bond was ultimately charged with two counts of possessing and using a chemical weapon in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code and section 229 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 and two counts of mail theft. Bond pleaded guilty and had the right to appeal. She was sentenced to six years in federal prison.

What is the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998?

The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (CWCIA) of 1998 implements the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) into U.S. federal legislation. Section 229 is the penalty provision.

Read More: The Forgotten Chemical WMDs: Chemical Weapons

The United States signed the CWC on January 13, 1993 and initiated it in April 1997. The international convention currently has 190 state parties. The CWC prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. The National Implementation Measures clause prohibits “natural and legal persons anywhere on its territory … from undertaking any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.” Section 229 of the CWCIA specifically decrees it “unlawful for any person knowingly to develop, produce, otherwise acquire….retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon.”

The CWC was signed with specific intentions aimed at international peace. It is a ceasefire for all countries involved in the manufacture or possession of chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction, as means of combat to ensure global safety. The treaty is non-self-executing, meaning the CWC itself didn’t establish any U.S. laws, but evoked a promise from the U.S. to enact future legislation in accordance to the treaty.

First Supreme Court Case

The first question at hand: Does Bond have standing to challenge the federal chemical weapons charges filed against her under the CWCIA claiming her 10th Amendment rights? The answer ended up being yes. The court found that a federally indicted criminal defendant has the right to challenge the statue raising the question of federalism and states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.

The following video recaps the initial case summary and further details the defense’s arguments.

The court also questioned whether the CWCIA is valid under the “necessary and proper” clause to enforce the Treaty Power. The Supreme Court opted out of making that decision and remanded the case to the Third Circuit.

Third Circuit Case

The Third Circuit stated the validity of a treaty was “beyond [its] ken.” The creation of treaties is outside the courts’ powers; they are created by the President and Senate. The court ruled that for a valid treaty, implementing legislation need only to be “rationally related.”

The Third Circuit used the 1920 case Missouri v. Holland as precedent. That case concerned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, a treaty established with Great Britain. The regulation of the hunting of migratory birds was previously deemed as a state concern, outside of Congress’ jurisdiction. The former case declared “the premise that principles of federalism will ordinarily impose no limitation on Congress’ ability to write laws supporting treaties” is implicit under the “necessary and proper” clause.

This decision raised natural concerns. Onlookers worried that if the court refused to decide on the validity of treaties, then anything goes. The President and Senate could ultimately ratify a treaty that required implementing laws that would otherwise be gravely illegal. Congress could theoretically grant itself powers it previously lacked through the Treaty Power.

This video features Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Law Professor at Georgetown University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, further discussing the merits of the Treaty Power with regard to the case. Rosenkranz advocates limited power of the Treaty Power and enforcement of domestic law.

Second Supreme Court Case

The case was brought back to the Supreme Court to further test the scope of the treaty power. The case had an opportunity to create a landmark decision but fell short. The majority response failed to make a decision in that regard. It did side with the defense, however, claiming that Bond’s actions didn’t fall within the CWCIA in the first place.

The Court emphasized the importance of Congress’ intent when implementing federal laws with regard to treaties. The CWCIA was not intended to punish local criminal activity, which has generally been a state concern. The Court also considered the definition of a chemical weapon, and decided Bond’s chemical choices did not fit. Justice Roberts explained, “In sum, the global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemi­cal irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon.” Although Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA, the decision casted “serious doubts about whether the treaty power can reach local crimes.”

The Court unanimously decided  in favor of Bond, although Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wrote separate concurring opinions. They did not agree with the majority opinion that Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA. They believed the CWCIA expressly prohibited “toxic substances” outside of “peaceful purposes.” The three justices sided with Bond in belief that the CWCIA is unconstitutional and goes outside of Congress’ enumerated powers. Treaties should only concern “matters of international intercourse,” not “matters of purely domestic regulation.”

So although the majority avoided the issues of the Treaty Power, Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas faced it right on. While the gray areas of international law and national application still exist, this at least hints to the fact that the Supreme Court may not hold American citizens to international laws that infringe on their rights in the future.

Conclusion

Can Americans be held to International Laws? It seems so. What if they intrude on individual and states’ rights?  The first Bond v. U.S. decision decreed we have the legal right to raise objections. The Supreme Court decision ensures our right as individuals to check the federal government when entering international agreements. It is important that the balance between state and federal government power stays in check. Even if the President and Senate can legally ratify international treaties, it doesn’t mean they should if they “violate traditional American rights, including the individual rights of federalism and the separation of powers.” American law, as always, reigns triumphant in the U.S.

Reources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: International Laws and Agreements

Justia: Bond v. United States

U.S. Chemical Weapons Convention: National Implementation Measures

Additional

Cornell University Law School: 18 U.S. Code & 229

Heritage Guide: Necessary and Proper Clause

Heritage Guide: Treaty Clause

Legal Information Institute: CRS Annotated Constitution

Atlantic: Bond v. U.S. Doesn’t Mean Latvian Cops Are Coming For Your Guns

The Heritage Foundation: Bond v. United States

Slate: Chemical Reaction

Washington Post: Thoughts on Bond v United States

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Are Your Individual Rights When it Comes to International Law? appeared first on Law Street.

We have different branches of our government for a reason. I remember learning about it as early as middle school — the legislature makes the laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them. There are checks and balances, separation of powers, and all sorts of mechanisms to make sure that we have a functioning democracy. But then two separate polls caught my eye this week that make me curious about the mindset of the American people.

The first involved a poll in which half of the American public said that the Supreme Court should be elected rather than appointed. The poll was conducted online by Harris Polls.

The second poll was conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and it discovered that 35 percent of Americans couldn’t name a single branch of the American government. In the release of the poll, Annenberg director Kathleen Hall Jamieson stated,

Although surveys reflect disapproval of the way Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are conducting their affairs, the Annenberg survey demonstrates that many know surprisingly little about these branches of government.

The two polls obviously, weren’t made to be related, but they do provide an interesting and weird insight into the minds of the American populace. It’s vaguely reminiscent of the time that Jimmy Fallon asked people whether they supported Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.

Back to the topic at hand though — the idea of having our Supreme Court justices subject to elections is a troublesome one. There’s a reason that they’re not elected in the first place — so that they don’t have to pander to an electorate. An electorate who probably could not even name the branch of government for which they would be choosing justices.

The way that our government works now, our Congresspeople, Senators, Governors, President, and other elected officials are constantly running for office. They always have to look at the polls to see what everyone is thinking. They sometimes have to contend with voters turning on them because of the actions of others in their party. They constantly have to contend with the fact that if they make moves or pass laws that their constituents don’t like, they could be out of a job.

Then, those people who are constantly up for vote, write our laws. And the Supreme Court, who is appointed by the those elected people, has to interpret those laws. Their job depends on the fact that they aren’t held accountable.

Does that mean that they always make the right choices? No, definitely not. I certainly take issue with many SCOTUS decisions, but I get to elect the people who pass and sign the laws — it would be too much to also vote for the people who interpret the laws.

Our democracy isn’t always perfect, and it often fails, but it is a democracy with checks and balances for a reason.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Vote for Our Supreme Court Justices appeared first on Law Street.

The nation has been waiting for the Senate’s 6,000 page report on the use of torture during the War on Terror since an investigation began in 2009. However, a series of stumbling blocks–including tampering by the CIA and large redactions by the Obama administration–have continually pushed back the public release date. The Senate’s frustration is clear, and there’s no way to know when this crucial report will finally be released.

The Senate Torture Report 

The controversy revolves around a report that the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote on potential abuses of the detention and interrogation program during the Bush administration’s War on Terror. Those who have seen the report say that it is damning proof that the CIA used cruel tactics, including water-boarding, against detained terror suspects. The report also concludes that these tactics did not produce any useful intelligence information, and that CIA officials lied to Congress during multiple hearings on the subject. However, the committee was not unanimous in this conclusion. The committee’s Republicans came out strongly against the report, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) referred to the investigation as a “mistake.”

CIA reaction to the report

CIA employees are having a slight panic attack. As one not-so-eloquent headline puts it, “CIA Employees Worry They’ll Be Shafted After Torture Report’s Release.”

The primary concern of those who participated in the detention program is that they could potentially be prosecuted for torturing suspected terrorists. It is unclear whether or not this could ever happen. CIA Director John Brennan seems to be unsure, and political leaders are not providing much information either. President Barack Obama made it clear when he came into office that he would not be prosecuting Bush administration officials for their role in the detainment program, but that was five years ago.

This kind of concern over the report might explain why the CIA tried to impede the investigation.

CIA tampered with Senate computers

Last week, Brennan admitted that the CIA had accessed computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee. CIA employees tampered with the investigation and deleted files from the computers.

According to an inquiry by the CIA’s inspector general, Five agency employees, two attorneys, and three information technology staff members gained access to emails written, sent, and received by members of the Senate committee.

This is a clear violation of the separation of powers. Watch Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) list the laws that the CIA may have broken:

That speech from Feinstein took place on March 11. Brennan did not actually admit that Feinstein was correct until July 31 after an internal inquiry.

Back in March, just a few hours after Feinstein’s speech, Brennan promptly dismissed any claim that the CIA had hacked Senate computers, saying “nothing could be further from the truth.” He claimed that such hacking was “beyond the scope of reason.” Brennan has had to walk back that statement in the past few days and has apologized to Feinstein.

Feinstein has recognized but not accepted the apology. Many Senators have expressed shock and anger at this violation of the separation of powers. Some, including Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) are even calling for Brennan’s resignation.

The only person who seems to be defending Brennan is the man who appointed him to his current position. At a recent press conference, Obama defended Brennan, claiming that he had “full confidence” in the CIA leader. Obama further stated:

Keep in mind, though, that John Brennan was the person who called for the I.G. report, and he’s already stood up a task force to make sure that lessons are learned and mistakes are resolved.

Critics of Brennan still contend that he should be fired, not just for this offense but for prior offenses, including his involvement in a drone program that has killed American citizens. Brennan will come under even more fire when the committee’s report comes out. At that point, he will probably have to defend his agency against charges of torture and illegal spying.

What’s going on with the report now?

The report was sent to the Obama administration after Senate completion in April for a declassification review. During such a review, the administration and other federal agencies redact parts of the report they believe could compromise national security or the safety of CIA agents. Obama can redact anything from a single word to an entire section.

The executive branch completed this process on July 2 and submitted the reviewed report to the Senate. Feinstein has complained that there were “significant redactions” in the new version of the report. The Senate Intelligence Committee is not satisfied and has withheld release of the report until they discuss these redactions with the executive branch. Anonymous sources have told VICE News that the redacted sections of the report that discuss forms of torture, the living conditions of detainees, and the intelligence gained from torture.

Congress and Obama will have to spend a significant amount of time resolving these issues before releasing the report to the public, and the status of the CIA tampering is still up in the air. This is a controversy with a lot of angry players; but when the report is finally released it will certainly be illuminating.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Justin Norman via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Senate Torture Report: Government Infighting Over Release appeared first on Law Street.