Of Israel, Obama, Yahoo, and the US Constitution

According to Yahoo! News (on Oct. 11, 2010):

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday said for the first time that he would extend the settlement restrictions in the West Bank – if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish national homeland.” – Associated Press.

My First Thought:

Maybe the Palestinians could counteroffer: “We will recognize Israel as the Jewish national homeland, concurrent with its also being the homeland of its non-Jewish citizens. But that recognition will be revoked if Israel in any way expands these settlements or increases their number.”

My Posted Response:

That very same day, I posted the following comment directly to that article, an option offered by Yahoo! News:

QUOTE:

Does the United States recognize Israel as a Jewish state? That would be interesting, in view of the First Amendment ban against "respecting an establishment of religion." Of course, since the US president is the only authority that can grant diplomatic recognition, he's not bound by the First Amendment here. Fascinating, to say the least.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
"If the US doesn't recognize Israel as a Jewish state, will Netanyahu 'or else' us?"

:UNQUOTE.

Upon Further Reflection

After I posted (the above), I got a bit curious. So I looked up President Truman’s recognition statement, which is brief:

“This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional Government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel –  APPROVED: Harry Truman”

How interesting: Truman didn’t directly recognize the State of Israel. He only recognized the “provisional government.” And that recognition was “de facto” – not “de jure.”

Here’s what Harry Truman didn’t say:

“The United States recognizes the State of Israel. Furthermore, Israel’s identity as a Jewish state is recognized for all time.” [The point? Truman didn’t use language which, in the words of the First Amendment, respected “an establishment of religion.”]

Why is it important – “it” being, what Truman didn’t say? Flash forward in time to June 4, 2008, when Barack Obama spoke these words in a public speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:

“Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state…”

Obama’s position was by those words made clear: It’s important to “preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state.” That sounds like “respecting an establishment of religion,” something which Truman didn’t do.

Obama’s statement was strange for a couple of other reasons:

·       His use of the word “sacrosanct,” which is defined as “extremely sacred or inviolable.” The only nation of which that could be true, if you consider that a future president used that word, is the United States. If not, then I have to ask: Why doesn’t Obama furnish a list of nations, in addition to Israel (and presumably, the United States), of which he also considers security to be sacrosanct? Maybe he should rank this listing in order of sacrosanctity.

·       How is it that a presidential candidate (or even a president, for that matter) gets to unilaterally decide which foreign nation’s security is “sacrosanct?” What ever happened to bringing in the Congress as “co-signers” to such a declaration? The US doesn’t even have any obligation to defend Israel due to treaty obligations (done by means of advice and consent of the US Senate)…because there is no such treaty.

·       Obama speaks of what is “non-negotiable” and of what “the Palestinians need” and of what “any agreement with the Palestinian people” must contain. He speaks as if the United States is or should be a direct party to these negotiations.

What about the First Amendment?

The First Amendment starts with these words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Congress doesn’t make laws by itself – except under one circumstance: If the President vetoes a bill, Congress can then make this bill a law by means of a two-thirds majority of each House. The First Amendment seems, therefore, to be saying: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. However, any law passed by means of the mutual agreement of the Congress and the President may respect an establishment of religion.”

The First Amendment’s wording exempts the President, for the First clearly states Congress “shall make no law.” The President makes no law when granting diplomatic recognition. Therefore, POTUS appears to be within the scope of his powers when respecting an establishment of religion by means of granting diplomatic recognition.

Conclusion

The US President is too powerful and speaks unilaterally when he shouldn’t. Not to mention, the US Constitution is in desperate need of replacement to address these and other issues. I have proposed a substitute for our current means of governance based on a model I invented: Cross-Sectional Representation, which I’ll expand on in future posts. At the very least, it’s time to convene a Constitutional Convention with the aim of replacing, not merely amending, the current document. At present, there is no legal mechanism to establish such a convention. But I shall post some thoughts on that in the not-too-distant future.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Don’t let anybody lie to you by saying we can’t replace the Constitution. There is a way.”