They have also declined to do so many times on the grounds I’ve pointed out.
Not every law-related complaint is justiciable, not just anyone can have standing, and there are some things that are the exclusive powers of the other two branches. The court can no more force the President to declare Israel a terrorist state than it can force Congress to declare war.
That’s not out of the blue though. They need a basis for doing that. And this is pretty clear law. A ruling that leahy is unenforceable except by the executive themselves would be huge. And ridiculous.
A ruling that the court could dictate foreign policy would be bigger and more ridiculous.
The law is not being violated; it’s being followed. The law delegates the power to declare foreign states terrorist supporters to the executive branch. The executive branch has declined to do so, and now Congress has declined to force the issue. The courts must defer to the executive’s judgement here–even if that judgement is wrong.
This isn’t foreign policy. Congress absolutely has the right to tell the President they can’t give stuff to war criminals because it’s our stuff. They have to sign off on treaties and arms sales. The Leahy law doesn’t say if the executive feels like they’re war criminals. It says, if there’s credible accusations.
It’s a policy that pertains to how the US relates to a foreign government. If that’s not foreign policy, nothing is. Plus, have you read the lawsuit? It wants the court to order the president to “influence” Israel. Influencing a foreign government is smack dab in the middle of the president’s authority.
Congress absolutely has the right to tell the President they can’t give stuff to war criminals because it’s our stuff.
Yes. And they have declined to do so.
The Leahy law doesn’t say if the executive feels like they’re war criminals
It says the Secretary of State shall make that determination. Secretary of State is part of the executive branch.
sigh I don’t know what else to say and I’m done wasting my time. Your political belief is that Israel ought to be declared a terrorist state? Fine. But that doesn’t change my legal analysis that this lawsuit is DOA.
Hilarious. We passed a law to stop exactly this and you think we’re not allowed to use it. So it’s your legal analysis that the President is allowed to just do whatever they want?
Lmao. Those are different issues. This is still about respecting an existing law. A law that the DOD and State Department abide by for every other country we give aid to.
Trying to force a report to Congress ain’t it.
By the way, it seems old Senator Leahy himself wonders why Israel has always gotten a pass. If the executive doesn’t have to follow this law why have they set up such a drawn out and ineffective process just for Israel, while other countries don’t get such protections?
They have also declined to do so many times on the grounds I’ve pointed out.
Not every law-related complaint is justiciable, not just anyone can have standing, and there are some things that are the exclusive powers of the other two branches. The court can no more force the President to declare Israel a terrorist state than it can force Congress to declare war.
That’s not out of the blue though. They need a basis for doing that. And this is pretty clear law. A ruling that leahy is unenforceable except by the executive themselves would be huge. And ridiculous.
A ruling that the court could dictate foreign policy would be bigger and more ridiculous.
The law is not being violated; it’s being followed. The law delegates the power to declare foreign states terrorist supporters to the executive branch. The executive branch has declined to do so, and now Congress has declined to force the issue. The courts must defer to the executive’s judgement here–even if that judgement is wrong.
This isn’t foreign policy. Congress absolutely has the right to tell the President they can’t give stuff to war criminals because it’s our stuff. They have to sign off on treaties and arms sales. The Leahy law doesn’t say if the executive feels like they’re war criminals. It says, if there’s credible accusations.
You think we have a king. We do not.
It’s a policy that pertains to how the US relates to a foreign government. If that’s not foreign policy, nothing is. Plus, have you read the lawsuit? It wants the court to order the president to “influence” Israel. Influencing a foreign government is smack dab in the middle of the president’s authority.
Yes. And they have declined to do so.
It says the Secretary of State shall make that determination. Secretary of State is part of the executive branch.
That’s obviously not what I think.
sigh I don’t know what else to say and I’m done wasting my time. Your political belief is that Israel ought to be declared a terrorist state? Fine. But that doesn’t change my legal analysis that this lawsuit is DOA.
Hilarious. We passed a law to stop exactly this and you think we’re not allowed to use it. So it’s your legal analysis that the President is allowed to just do whatever they want?
Congress has weighed in.
https://theintercept.com/2024/01/16/senate-israel-human-rights-condition-aid/
So this lawsuit is even deader now than it was yesterday.
Lmao. Those are different issues. This is still about respecting an existing law. A law that the DOD and State Department abide by for every other country we give aid to.
Trying to force a report to Congress ain’t it.
By the way, it seems old Senator Leahy himself wonders why Israel has always gotten a pass. If the executive doesn’t have to follow this law why have they set up such a drawn out and ineffective process just for Israel, while other countries don’t get such protections?