Talk:Jerusalem Embassy Act

message: the full text of the law must be moved to wikisource. Oren neu dag (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy to Wikisource 

message: Was this bill signed into law, or was it merely passed by the two chambers? This is not clear from the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangeska (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Berg said if the State Department was forced to relocated the Embassy it could construct it and still continue to argue Jerusalem isn't the capital. Berg doesn't dismiss that premise. He simply uses different words to restate the same thing when he says Congress can't force the President to recognize Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem . It is a Constitutional issue that has nothing to do with the Senater Bill or Berg. 
The opinion that "it cannot use the ‘‘spending power’’ to order the Executive either in 1996 or 1999 to make that building an embassy rather than a consulate or cultural center." is not a view shared by all. Here is another article that cites the US Constitution; the Restatement (Third) Foreign Relations Law of the United States 1984 § 203 and § 204, 1984, American Law Institute; and the Jerusalem Embassy Act, 141 Cong. Rec. S15166 (daily ed. Oct. 13, 1995) (introduction of S. 1322); id. S15176-79 (daily ed. Oct. 13, 1995) (remarks of Sen. Dole) (comparing S. 1322 to S. 770): 
::What you cite is from an article, [From the Legal Time, Oct. 9, 1995] CAN CONGRESS MOVE AN EMBASSY? (By Malvina Halberstam), entered into the record BY Sen. Dole. It was not read aloud as part of his floor statement but merely submitted for printing.
"But it is true, as Justice asserts, that the President holds the power to recognize foreign states and governments. That power is exclusive. It extends not just to states and governments, but also to claims of territorial sovereignty, such as claims to sovereignty over disputed cities like Jerusalem. The President's exclusive recognition power implies that he has broad discretion to interpret the waiver provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act. His recognition power implies that he has broad latitude to determine whether moving the Embassy undermines the "national security interests" of the United States. A narrow interpretation of the waiver provision would impermissibly
interfere with the President's exclusive recognition power.
:: That's not what I find, again in the 3rd person's article, under ‘‘COMPARISON OF S. 770 AND S. 1322’’ (S15179) either...
::*The withholding of funds pending groundbreaking for a new embassy in Jerusalem in 1996 has been deleted (Section 3(a)(2) and section 3(b) of S. 770).
::*A new finding concerning a 1990 resolution on Jerusalem passed by Congress has been added (finding 9 of S. 1322).
::*The statement of policy has been amended to include reference to Jerusalem being undivided and open to all ethnic and religious groups.
::*The statement of policy has been re-worded to use ‘‘relocated’’ rather than ‘‘officially open’’ in reference to the Embassy (section 3).
::*Fiscal Year 1995 funding (section 4 of S. 770) has been deleted.
::*Funding for relocation costs in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 has been modified to be discretionary rather than mandatory (section 4 of S. 1322).
Senator Dole and others who prefer a narrower reading of the waiver authority may acknowledge that the President has a power of recognition. But they will argue that this power, even if exclusive, does not include an exclusive power to decide on the location of a United States Embassy. They will point out that the location of an embassy does not necessarily imply recognition of that city as a state's capital.  They will conclude that moving the Embassy to Jerusalem does not usurp the President's recognition power, because the President can always clarify that the move does not change the United States' recognition policy - that Jerusalem's status should be resolved through negotiations. Indeed, the United States has done this in other circumstances. The United States maintained an embassy in East Berlin but made clear that the United States did not regard East Berlin as the capital of Germany. Even today the United States maintains a few embassies in cities other than the host state's capital city. In such cases the executive branch is perfectly capable of clarifying what it regards as the actual capital of the host state. Therefore, this argument runs, the Congress can set the location of an embassy without intruding on the President's recognition power"  == 45 CATH. U.L. REV. 837, Spring, 1996, THE FUTURE OF JERUSALEM: A SYMPOSIUM: THE JERUSALEM EMBASSY ACT OF 1995, Geoffrey R. Watson harlan (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  S.770, which Berg opines about in National Review, did not have any form of Presidential waiver what-so-ever - in effect making his opinion Moot and unusable here. Dole inserted the waiver clause ON October 23, 1995 as an amendment to S.1322, again NOT the bill Berg was writting about or even aware of. George Orwell III (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Berg was explaining a constitutional issue that has nothing to do with the waiver. You've gone out of your way to ignore that. The Constitution and the Third Restatement are not new developments. So, I'm going to once again explain, in the Background subsection, that the city where an embassy is located is not automatically recognized as the capital - no ifs, ands, buts, or maybes. harlan (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  THAT nugget is better suited for some other article that may be cited FROM here if at all -- but it has NOTHING to do with the background for specifically the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. The background should just be mirroring and expanding (to a reasonable extent) Section 2 Findings of the proposal as passed. 08:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll cite and quote the Restatement and 45 CATH. U.L. REV. 837. harlan (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't care what you cite as long as it falls under the appropriate sub-section. Spring 1996 most certainly falls into Developments since Passage & your Berg-Constitutional-Premise would fall under Contstitutional seperation of Powers -- NOT background for proposing the legislation. None of what you present addresses the failure of the court cases brought against the Secretary of State (in External Links) in case you missed it. George Orwell III (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

text: ONLY if you finish with the absolute and complete failure to date of either repealing the waiver clause AS WELL AS the inability of Congress to even secure similar funding incentives/penalties as the premise begs on top of a failed legal challenge against the Secretary of State. It is hypocritical to introduce the premise full well knowing no such validation for its effectiveness has occurred in the time since Nov. 1995.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Orwell III (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Unless it relates to this Act specifically you can spout one legal citation over another - it is still a tangent, at best, rather than germaine. Maybe you should create another article dealing with the question and point to that from here but in no way shape or form does ANY of that have to with the BACKGROUND for the passage of this act. However, you may introduce the question(s) raised afterwards as part of developments since passage but even then what I feel you are trying here is to make the Act subservient to the questions raised and Constitutionality of this thing or that thing rather the other way around. Berg piece falls flat so you abandon it for some other factoid that moves farther and farther from the Act itself into areas dealing with issues best suited for other subjects or articles by themselves. Unfortunately this article has to with the Embassy Act first and foremost. George Orwell III (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK FINE ALREADY - I GET THAT PARADIGM COULD BE IN PLAY. You choose to ignore actual events in spite of that premise. The point betrayed yet supremely related to this Act has been CONGRESS' behavior and the repeated attempt to make capital status part of US Foreign Policy in spite of that valid premise or the many other events on the ground in the interim. Congress has, at the minimum, issued joint resolutions re-re-re-re-stating Jerusalem should be the recognized capitol on at least a bi-annually schedule since 1998 (the first 6 month review & report). In addition, nearly every State Department & Related Operations Appropriations bill since has also attempted one way or the other to amend or include as a rider the same language as, for lack of a better term, the lone successful endeavor did with that Sec. 214 and beyond. The same variation on a theme is true with nearly all the annual Fiscal Year Foreign Operations Authorization proposals since 1998 as well. This Congressional behavior has begun to morph even further into the introduction of numerous stand-alone incarnations containing the same language but made ready to attach to or amend with on any proposal, related or not, given the chance. Currently the language HAS gone all the way to repealing Section 7 waiver powers (see Refs # 24 & 25 for latest examples, # 29 for a separate string). A full listing of would be long and complicated but I may be able to produce it over the next weekend if there is any doubt that this has not been the case. George Orwell III (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: You seem correct, but just re-writing the prose to say ‘The right-wing elements of the Israel lobby have not managed to entice the U.S. Congress to repeat the incorporation…’ would be closer to the situation and plans, based on the refs I have seen. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never questioned the correctness of any of that - only if incorporating those points into this work goes past normal relevance. The points could be/should be cited in passing to some degree or manner and wiki-linked to whatever article or category better deals with those points from here. George Orwell III (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Constitution, and the Restatement (Third) Foreign Relations Law of the United States 1984 § 

message: Doesn't contain ONE FUCKING WORD about the drafting of the bill, which is precisely what the article should talk about. WP is a sham.184.145.42.19 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't want use the words above, but I did go here to find out why the act was proposed so agree with the noted lack of a background. Preslav (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbage article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jerusalem Embassy Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070810193628/http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11647 to http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11647
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jerusalem Embassy Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607182941/http://www.jcpa.org/jcpa/art/knesset6.htm to http://www.jcpa.org/jcpa/art/knesset6.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209074518/http://www.justice.gov/olc/s770.16.htm to http://www.justice.gov/olc/s770.16.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems someone added a section into the second paragraph, quoting the Presidential Determination 2018-02 and claiming that it effectively stopped the relocation of the US Embassy.  Initially, I corrected it and said that it only delayed it for six months, but then I got to reading it and what it actually says.
It actually says nothing of the sort.
The Presidential Determination referenced states: "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the "Act"), I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act."
Okay, let's go check 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act, and see what exactly the President suspended.
3(b): "Opening Determination.--Not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the Department of State for fiscal
year 1999 for 'Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad' may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has officially opened."
So in essence, we can't allocate more than 50 percent of the money appropriated until the new embassy is officially opened.  But wait, what does 7(b) say?
7(b): "Applicability of Waiver to Availability of Funds.--If the President exercises the authority set forth in subsection (a) in a fiscal year, the limitation set forth in section 3(b) shall apply to funds appropriated in the following fiscal year for the purpose set forth in such section 3(b) except to the extent that the limitation is suspended in such following fiscal year by reason of the exercise of the authority in subsection (a).
OK, so the President can exercise the authority in section 7(a) which will mean that the limitation in 3(b) will apply to the following fiscal year.  Cool, what does 7(a) say?
7(a): "Waiver Authority.--(1) Beginning on October 1, 1998, the President may suspend the limitation set forth in section
3(b) for a period of six months if he determines and reports to Congress in advance that such suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States."
Aha!  There it is.  So it appears that the President has used the national security argument and has suspended the 50 percent funding cap for the embassy for this fiscal year.  The fiscal year began on October 1, 2017.
I have edited the sentence accordingly.  It now reads, "After the announcement, President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State (Presidential Determination No. 2018-02): a declaration that waived the 50% funding cap normally in place when a new Embassy is opened, stating that the suspension is necessary to "protect the national security interests of the United States.""  
If you are interested in reverting this section back to what you thought it should be, please explain how removing a funding cap effectively halts the move of the Embassy.  Schlice (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential Determination No. 2018-02 

message: I'm not sure if it would best go here or there is a better article for it, such as the one for the embassy now that it is moved, but it seems like the long history of Presidents and candidates making the move of the embassy a campaign promise is notable, especially in light of how it has now happened an debate surrounding it. Here are some references to Bush, McCain, and Romney promising the move as well as the Republican Party platform calling for it and more measured statements by Clinton and Obama that are generally viewed as supporting a move though not promising one as clearly as Republicans tend to have done. 
I'm sticking them here as I feel they should be incorporated somewhere and somehow, they are definitely a notable part of the historical context I think. But I'm not confident this is exactly the right place or how so soliciting suggestions and consensus seems like the best suggestion. It seems like a notable part of the history of this issue that shouldn't be lost wherever the right place for it to be referenced is. Phil (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promises to move