Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: BREAKING: The latest Romney outrage (contradicts U.S. policy on Jerusalem) [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)35. President Clinton
never signed the law.
<...>
Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branchs constitutional authority over foreign policy; they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests.
<...>
Under the Constitution of the United States the President has exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory.[24] The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the provisions of the Embassy Relocation Act invade exclusive presidential authorities in the field of foreign affairs and are unconstitutional.[25]
U.S. presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have alluded to or explicitly stated the belief that Congressional resolutions attempting to legislate foreign policy infringe upon the Executive's authority and responsibility to carry out sound and effective U.S. foreign relations.
<...>
Even from the Embassy Act's legislative beginnings, the question of Congress' over-reach and if somehow it was usurping the Executive's authority or power over matters of foreign affair had played subtle role in shaping the debate at the time. President Clinton had taken the unusual step of not signing the Embassy Act into law once Congress had presented it to him but rather let 10 days of inaction pass, allowing the bill to return to Congress and automatically become law by Constitutional "default" to show his disapproval. The non-action on Clinton's part reinforced this sticking point between the branches of Federal government without the possible public fallout from taking a "negative stand" on what appeared to be favorable, veto-proof legislation on the surface overall and at the time.[27] [28][29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act#Constitutional_separation_of_powers
Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branchs constitutional authority over foreign policy; they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests.
<...>
Under the Constitution of the United States the President has exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory.[24] The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the provisions of the Embassy Relocation Act invade exclusive presidential authorities in the field of foreign affairs and are unconstitutional.[25]
U.S. presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have alluded to or explicitly stated the belief that Congressional resolutions attempting to legislate foreign policy infringe upon the Executive's authority and responsibility to carry out sound and effective U.S. foreign relations.
<...>
Even from the Embassy Act's legislative beginnings, the question of Congress' over-reach and if somehow it was usurping the Executive's authority or power over matters of foreign affair had played subtle role in shaping the debate at the time. President Clinton had taken the unusual step of not signing the Embassy Act into law once Congress had presented it to him but rather let 10 days of inaction pass, allowing the bill to return to Congress and automatically become law by Constitutional "default" to show his disapproval. The non-action on Clinton's part reinforced this sticking point between the branches of Federal government without the possible public fallout from taking a "negative stand" on what appeared to be favorable, veto-proof legislation on the surface overall and at the time.[27] [28][29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act#Constitutional_separation_of_powers
Still, the WH sets U.S. foreign policy, and Romney specifically contradicted the stated U.S. policy.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
BREAKING: The latest Romney outrage (contradicts U.S. policy on Jerusalem) [View all]
ProSense
Jul 2012
OP
Hopefully it will be starting when Chris, Al, Ed, Rachel and Lawrence are back with their shows
Raine
Jul 2012
#5
Well, this is a very sensitive spot in the world and the U.S. doesn't need another person
CTyankee
Jul 2012
#26
On top of it all is that those who would vote for this man have no clue that this is going on.
Gregorian
Jul 2012
#10
So he will just blithely go along with whatever other nations want us to do.........
kestrel91316
Jul 2012
#29