Zivotofsky V. Kerry

[wolf63]

Whilst wandering through Wikipedia I found mention of the above legal contest, fight, battle - whatever.

I understand that it is about the place of birth written on a birth certificate. Other than that I don't understand why it is an issue. Can anybody translate it into plain English for me?

I don't need a in-depth explanation just the high points.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zivotofsky_v._Kerry


Thanks. I might not be back in AB land until Sunday, but I will return.

[Mamyalynne]

This claims to put it into plain English...


http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/jerusalem-passport-case-divides-court-in-plain-english/

[wolf63]

Thanks mamy - I never thought of using Google. I have read a couple of paragraphs and will get back to it. It is all too confusing, much more than it need be.

:-)

[Jackdaw33]

It all seems to boil down to whether Jerusalem is in Israel or Palestine. This could only happen in the USA.

[Peter Pedant]

it has nothing to do with the way law operates in the UK

the prez has various right and duties - and basically the plaintiff said that the prez had a duty to specify Jerusalem as Israel and the counsel for the prez said he had a right to write what he wanted

the prez won

there are all sorts of features in this case, we dont have such as the presidents executive privilege ( various things that cant be questioned in the courts) and whether a court can strike down a statute ( no in the UK )

it is likely that such a question in the UK would be decided on the lines of ex parte Kuchenmeister - which is here
http://swarb.co.uk/rex-v-bottrill-ex-parte-kuechenmeister-ca-1946/

where the courts would accept absolutely a certificate from the foreign office specifying the country that Jerusalem is in

Jackdaw would have done this case in his law course in Dham in the sixties - it has changed a bit since then as a result of ministry bad behaviour over cases like Matrix Churchill - and the courts may now look behind the certificate and look at the reasons - ministers have only themselves to blame for this devt

[Jackdaw33]

I didn't do law at Durham. I studied it part-time in the 90s. We didn't touch on that particular case.

[Peter Pedant]

Hi jack

K went to court it seems in 1946
and said DORA 1939 was only for the duraation of the war with Germany
Germany was defeated and doesnt ezist no more - debellatio as we discussed a few weeks ago
so DORA doesnt apply
so can you let me out please ?

and the courts said that they would be bound by certification by the relevant ministry and that was an end to it
( and the man at the min certified Germany existed )