WASHINGTON — The White House and Congress could be headed to court, lobbyists and legislators said yesterday, after President Bush signed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act into law, but rejected in principle sections that require the United States to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
The law, which authorizes $8.6 billion in State Department spending for next year, was passed by both the House and the Senate last week, and signed by Bush on Monday night.
It includes language requiring the State Department to bring the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem under the auspices of the American Embassy in Tel Aviv and to recognize that Jerusalem residents live in Israel.
One clause prohibits the use of congressionally approved funds for any U.S. government document that lists countries and their capital cities but does not identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Another clause says that a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem can choose to have Israel listed on his passport as his or her country of birth. There is another, less-binding clause, once again calling on the president to immediately begin relocating the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
The White House said that the president’s constitutional authority to direct foreign policy overrides the provisions mandated by Congress.
Bush said the executive branch should view the provisions as merely “advisory.” If they were construed as mandatory, he said, it would “impermissibly interfere with the president’s constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the nation in international affairs, and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states.”
U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem “has not changed,” the statement added.
The status of Jerusalem has been a hot-button issue both in the Middle East and in Congress.
In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which required the president to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But the bill included a national security waiver, and presidents have postponed the move every six months since the law was enacted.
Since then, lawmakers have been trying to take other actions against the State Department’s stance on Jerusalem, but couldn’t garner enough bipartisan support until this year.
Lawmakers who supported the act are furious over the White House’s stance.
“No president ever has the unfettered right to the sole purview of foreign policy,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) “That’s a misreading of the Constitution.”
Weiner said he was reviewing legal options. “The president can veto bills, but he can’t ignore provisions of Congress.”
Palestinian officials blasted Bush for signing the bill, calling it a “flagrant violation” of signed agreements between the United States and Israel and hinting at violence. Spokesman Saeb Erekat said the bill “undermines all efforts being exerted to revive the peace process and put it back on track,” and could cost lives, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz.
The administration opted to simply ignore the Jerusalem provisions rather than vetoing the legislation or seeking a compromise.
Mary Cheh, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, disagreed with Weiner’s interpretation that the president cannot ignore provisions of Congress. She said the Constitution grants the president discretion on foreign policy matters, which would allow him to ignore the provisions in the authorization act with near impunity.
Congress can’t take the matter to court, Cheh said; only a person who has been harmed by noncompliance with the provision could do so, and would have to prove actual damage.
Courts tend not to get involved in cases like this, viewing them as political issues, Cheh added.