Comment Up
The latest affront to biblical sensibilities came this week when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
Americans born in Jerusalem must not have “Israel” listed on their passports as their place of birth, saying the city remains part of disputed territory. Such a move could provoke Muslims to violence, President Obama’s U.S. State Department argued, so the passport should say “Jerusalem” not “Israel.” Congress took the opposite stand, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the executive branch.
Read more at WND
4 comments:
I beg to differ. The Supreme Court has no say as to what's on a passport. They simply stated it is the President, not congress, who is responsible for recognizing a nation state. It could change with a new president.
That's good to know.
Yep, that's good to know...
So you're saying it's possible to have a new POTUS every 4 years who can decide what nations get recognized or not. And thus in what countries we'll have embassies located in? Allow travel to... How do existing treaties work if there's a possibility of a flip flop every election cycle?
I'm confused... How can that even work?
So I guess, the next POTUS could decide not to play footsy and open up Cuba.
And then where are we? And where do all the millions of Cubans stateside, in South Florida in particular, stand on reunifying with their homeland and family in Cuba?
Isn't family a big priority?
I've got it! Let's justs deport them all and the rest of the people who just float in and take our jobs... I still just you would have to recognize their country to be able to file a flight plan to take them all there... Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Hmmm...
Right now even the Democrats are going against Obama on the TRP and I agree with them. To get into all the other stuff there, can't fight with a socialist. why bother. Let's see what happens in 2016.
Post a Comment