Lando Calrissian Case Study

In the case of Lando Calrissian, based purely on legal precedent, Congress cannot force the secretary of state, acting on behalf of the president, to recognize a foreign government. In Zivotofsky v. Kerry 576 U.S. (2015) a legal question that is almost exactly the same as this one is raised. In that case, the court decided in a 6-4 decision that congress was indirectly practicing the president’s recognition powers through Section 214d of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That act is virtually the same as section 547d of the IRAA. In Zivotofsky, the court ruled that the receptions clause in article II is enough to grant the president power to recognize foreign governments. The Judges cite the President’s powers to make treaties and

The main legal question was if congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative power to the president. The court in a 7-1 decision said that there was no constitutional violation. The court argued that there was a fundamental difference between domestic and foreign affairs, and that the federal government has the constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs as it wants to. The most important part of the case for my purposes is Justice Sutherland’s statement “In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.” What this means is that the President has the sole power to be the representative of the nation in foreign relations. The president alone has the power to recognize, and negotiate with foreign powers. Even if we ignore the other cases, this one alone sets a legal precedent that should apply well to the case of Mr.Calrissian. Combined with the other cases, especially Zivotofsky the legal precedent is clear, and the court should rule that section 547d is