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.
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?
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.
No. That’s the law as passed by Congress. Either it’s enforceable or it isn’t.
It’s enforceable by Congress through their oversight and impeachment powers.
Sure. And it’s also enforceable by a court order to the DOD stating they need to comply with the law.
Except what they ask for is beyond the power of the courts to grant.
No it isn’t. Courts have forced the government to follow the law many times.
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.
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?
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.