QUOTE:
Why should Abbas recognize the Jewish state of Israel? Not even the USA did that. In fact, the USA could NOT do that, since it would be a violation of the First Amendment to recognize an establishment of religion. In the text of the USA's de jure (and, therefore, more official) recognition, the word “Jewish” does not appear. The earlier de facto recognition has even more telling language. Signed by Harry Truman on May 14, 1948, it reads:
“This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional [NOTE: the preceding word “provisional” was penned in as an insertion in this typed document] Government thereof.
“The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel.” In this last sentence, the last 3 words were penned in, after these typed words were crossed out: “Jewish state.”
:QUOTE.
First Amendment considerations:
Here's the First Amendment in its entirety:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The very first word in the First is "Congress" and the fifth word is "law." But...does the First prohibit the President from declaring, "The United States grants diplomatic recognition of Israel as a Jewish state?" [NOTE: I'll address the President's "right" to make such a declaration in the next section.] My answer is: Yes. My argument: If Congress can't respect an establishment of religion, even of a religion outside the USA's borders, by what logic can the President do so - keeping in mind Article II's very first sentence: "The executive power shall be vested in a President..."?
The term "executive power" was used - not "royal prerogative." That is, this "executive power" was meant to "execute" the will of Congress, though more broadly, the will of the people. However, this "will" cannot extend to respecting an establishment of religion since, again, the First Amendment bars respecting an establishment of religion. This brings up an interesting possibility: Since the First only bars Congress from making a law, could Congress instead merely pass a concurrent resolution? This would not have the power of law, nor would it require the President's signature, but would "merely" represent the "sense" of the Congress.
I could definitely see Jewish lobbyists (notably from AIPAC) pressuring Congress to pass a resolution declaring its sense that Israel is a Jewish state, so my question is a good one. My direct answer? Yes, Congress could do this. However, the President might argue that such an action would hamper his ability to conduct foreign policy. Not to mention: We-the-People might turn on a Congress that went out of its way to acknowledge the religion of a foreign power.
The President's "right" to make foreign policy
This quote is from Obama's 2014 State of the Union speech:
"As we speak, American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and lasting peace and security for the State of Israel – a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side."
The part I highlighted is crucial, especially considering the entire comment drew a standing ovation from both Houses of Congress. Obama called Israel "a Jewish state," and yet he doesn't change the terms of our statement of diplomatic recognition to reflect this. And this is something he can ["allegedly," I claim) do solely under his own authority. So why doesn't he simply go ahead and change our statement of diplomatic recognition?
As for "America will always be at their side," just ask the Ukrainians what that means in terms of their current crisis and the Budapest Memorandum (as cited in wikipedia):
"In return for giving up its nuclear weapons, Ukraine, the United States of America, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, pledging to respect Ukraine territorial integrity..."
Making matters worse for Israel, is the fact that the US has no treaty (or Memorandum) commitments to Israel regarding their "territorial integrity." Israel has nothing in writing from us, but only has the word of successive US presidents and Congresses. What to think? What to think?
I dispute the right of the US president to conduct foreign policy on his own. Specifically, I deny (though universal opinion among constitutional scholars contradicts me on this) the prerogative of the President to grant or withdraw diplomatic recognition. Such recognition should be regarded as a form of "treaty" which means the US Senate would have to give its "advice and consent."
I took the liberty of summarizing the powers of the US President as stated in the Constitution's Article II. The following omits all other language except that pertaining to presidential powers, listing those powers as bullet points. You will see there's nothing here that can justify any claim of a president's exclusive power to conduct foreign policy:
QUOTE:
- The executive Power shall be vested in a President...,
- The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia...;
- he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments...,
- he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except...
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided...;
- and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...
- The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate...
- He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend...;
- he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;
- he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Most people would be amazed at just how little power the Constitution grants the President. But to those who are rabid advocates of the Imperial Presidency, I say, "Read it and weep."
Conclusion
If the USA were to declare Israel a Jewish state - and not merely predominately Jewish in its current make-up - Netanyahu might decide to void the citizenship of the million-plus Muslim/Christian Arabs who are Israeli citizens of long-standing. For how could someone who is not a Jew possibly be allowed to remain a citizen of a now-formally-acknowledged Jewish state? Bibi's Knesset might even allow such disenfranchised former citizens to remain in Israel. But they might end up being required to pay extra taxes such were imposed on non-Muslims living in the caliphate. How ironic!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012) and
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment