# Zivotofsky v. Kerry and Recognizing Nations **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 9, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zivotofsky-v-kerry-and-recognizing-nations/722101 "2015-06-09T20:45:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Hooleehootoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/eada6e/32.png) [@Hooleehootoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hooleehootoo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zivotofsky-v-kerry-and-recognizing-nations/722101/1 "2015-06-09T20:45:04Z")
Zivotofsky v. Kerry was a surprise to me, as I had not heard of the years-long conflict between Presidents and Congress with regards to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003. Saying that “[the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers”, does not to me clearly imply that a President can recognize any State she decides she wants to. Who was the last Pres. to controversially recognize a State? Reading about the Taiwan Relations Act leads me Goldwater v. Carter , which is about a controversial de-recognition. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2015, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zivotofsky-v-kerry-and-recognizing-nations/722101/2 "2015-06-09T21:41:38Z")
There was some controversy over President Clinton’s decision to recognize the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in 1995. ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2015, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zivotofsky-v-kerry-and-recognizing-nations/722101/3 "2015-06-10T01:37:06Z")
Apparently Congress and the White House were in disagreement on the extent to which they should deal with [Rhodesia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Zimbabwe_relations), during the period of minority rule: > [@](#): > > In 1971, despite Administration opposition, the U.S. Congress passed legislation permitting the United States to import strategic materials, such as chrome, from Rhodesia. The legislation, which took effect on January 1, 1972, was of little real economic benefit to the Rhodesian economy, and the United States continued to support the balance of the sanctions program. After the legislation was repealed in March 1977, the United States once again enforced all sanctions. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2015, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zivotofsky-v-kerry-and-recognizing-nations/722101/4 "2015-06-10T01:47:26Z")
> [@Hooleehootoo](#): > > Zivotofsky v. Kerry was a surprise to me, as I had not heard of the years-long conflict between Presidents and Congress with regards to the Foreign Relations Authorization > Act, Fiscal Year 2003. Saying that “[the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers”, does not to me clearly imply that a President can recognize any State she decides she wants to. > > Who was the last Pres. to controversially recognize a State? Reading about the Taiwan Relations Act leads me Goldwater v. Carter , which is about a controversial de-recognition. I though the implication of the ruling was a bit more in depth, specifically that the state department was part of the administration, and congress could not tell the state department what to do as they had no authority to override the administration. State department recognizes other countries, otherwise why not let anyone do it? I gather the implication in the ruling was that if congress disliked what the state department was doing, the limit of what they could do was impeach the President or Secretary of State, or else cut off the budget? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2015, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zivotofsky-v-kerry-and-recognizing-nations/722101/5 "2015-06-10T01:50:28Z")
> [@Hooleehootoo](#): > > Zivotofsky v. Kerry was a surprise to me, as I had not heard of the years-long conflict between Presidents and Congress with regards to the Foreign Relations Authorization > Act, Fiscal Year 2003. Saying that “[the President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers”, does not to me clearly imply that a President can recognize any State\*\* she decides she wants to. > \*\* > Who was the last Pres. to controversially recognize a State? Reading about the Taiwan Relations Act leads me Goldwater v. Carter , which is about a controversial de-recognition. I’m pretty sure the President is male. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2015, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zivotofsky-v-kerry-and-recognizing-nations/722101/6 "2015-06-10T02:13:08Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > I’m pretty sure the President is male. Judging by another thread, this apparently has something to do with the possibility that Hillary Clinton will recognize Palestine if she’s elected President. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2015, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/zivotofsky-v-kerry-and-recognizing-nations/722101/7 "2015-06-10T08:28:21Z")
**Moderator Action** There has never been a female president, so referring to the president as “she” has only served to drag up the Hillary Clinton issue from your other thread, which serves absolutely no purpose in GQ. If you really want to discuss Hillary Clinton, you are more than free to do so in Great Debates, Elections, or The Pit (depending on the exact nature of your thread). Without the Hillary reference, your post was otherwise perfectly acceptable for GQ. However, since you were already given instructions in your previous thread to take the Hillary issue elsewhere, I am going to close this. If you drag Hillary into yet another GQ thread after this, you will receive a warning for failure to follow moderator instructions. Thread closed.