Zivotofsky V. Kerry: an unnecessary decision grounded on weak precedents

In Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Supreme Court engaged, in an erroneous and unnecessary debate about the scope and definition of the president's powers over foreign affairs. It was unnecessary because the case embodied what was essentially a political question (which the Court chose not to address)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Presidential studies quarterly 2016-12, Vol.46 (4), p.911-924
Main Author: Rush, Mark
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Company legal issue
Congress
Constitutional law
Debates
Executive power
Federal court decisions
International relations
Israel
Legal counsel
Legislation
Legislative process
Miranda rights
Political power
Presidential powers
Presidents
Separation of powers
Supreme Court decisions
Vetoes
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Supreme Court engaged, in an erroneous and unnecessary debate about the scope and definition of the president's powers over foreign affairs. It was unnecessary because the case embodied what was essentially a political question (which the Court chose not to address) concerning the nature of the legislative process. The Court discussed presidential power in terms of erroneous dicta in Youngstown v. Sawyer and U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright that miscast and misinterpret the nature of executive power. The result is a missed opportunity to clarify key aspects of the legislative process and a muddying of the waters concerning the conduct of foreign affairs.
ISSN:0360-4918
1741-5705
DOI:10.1111/psq.12325