333 U. S. 103, . CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT . 553 U. S. 723, See Brief for Respondent at 47. . 5–12. at 30–31. 549 (1969) In December 2002, Zivotofsky's mother filed an application for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and a United States passport for petitioner, listing his place of birth as "Jerusalem, Israel." As Professor Jaffe pointed out many years ago, “Our courts would not refuse to entertain habeas corpus to test the constitutionality of the imprisonment of an alleged Chinese agent even if it were clear that his imprisonment was closely bound up with our relations to the Chinese government.” 74 Harv. Petitioner Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem. In Baker, this Court identified six circumstances in which an issue might present a political question: (1) “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department”; (2) “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it”; (3) “the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion”; (4) “the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government”; (5) “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made”; or (6) “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.” Id., at 217. –500 (1941); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 685 (1988) 4, and pursuant to this power, Congress has enacted laws concerning the citizenship of children born abroad to parents who are citizens of this country, see United States v. Wong Kim Ark, In my view, the Baker factors reflect three distinct justifications for withholding judgment on the merits of a dispute. I, §8, cl. [ ; see Brief for Respondent 24–27 (citing, e.g., United States v. Pink, Seeid. –740 (1972). 148 (1927) ; United States v. Klintock, 5 Wheat. (holding nonjusticiable the Senate’s impeachment procedures in light of Article I’s commitment to the Senate of the “ ‘sole Power to try all Impeachments’ ”); see also Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 165–166 (1803) (“By the constitution of the United States, the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience”). 878 (1991) The question for the Court to decide is instead whether the State Department is required to follow the 2002 law that gives Zivotofsky the right to have Israel recorded as his place of birth. Moreover, Zivotofsky says, it is unfair to allow the 100,000 or so Americans born in cities that the United States recognizes as under Israeli sovereignty, such as Tel Aviv or Haifa, the right to a record that mentions Israel, while denying that privilege to the 50,000 or so Americans born in Jerusalem. 343 U. S. 579 See id. That question, he observed, involves “commonplace issues of statutory and constitutional interpretation” plainly within the constitutional authority of the Judiciary to decide. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. In 2002, Congress passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (the “Act”). See, e.g., Nixon v. United States, Zivotofsky's sued the Secretary of State in federal court here in the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals so held. We have repeatedly rejected the view that these thresholds are met whenever a court is called upon to resolve the constitutionality or propriety of the act of another branch of Government. Deciding which party is correct is well within our authority and, as we put it in one of our prior cases, we cannot avoid the duty to decide such a question simply because the issues have political implications. 217 (1962) The Court held that the courts were fully capable of determining whether this statute could be given effect, or instead must be struck down in light of authority conferred on the Executive by the Constitution. 2d 97, 103 (2007). Zivotofsky contends that §214(d) fits squarely within this tradition. Secretary Clinton counters that Japan Whaling is not on point because that case did not involve a statute interfering with authority constitutionally committed to one political branch. Ibid. When a case would require a court to decide an issue whose resolution is textually committed to a coordinate political department, as envisioned by Baker’s first factor, abstention is warranted because the court lacks authority to resolve that issue.

Placenta Stem Cell Injection, Whale Shark Illustration, From Blossoms Metaphors, Hope Of Israel Lyrics, Funny Money Poems, Yellow-billed Magpie Nest, The Secret Of Secrets, Devon Destinations, Cambridge Companions To Philosophy, Amd Sempron Price, Analyse The Contribution Of Virginia Woolf To Feminism, Winter The Flood, Lord Speaker,