The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath.

Moving away from the question of recognition,

and towards simply a sort of a simpler principle

that wasn't recognition specific, which is that Congress,

whatever else Congress may do, maybe Congress can counter-man what the president is saying.

But Congress can't force the executive itself in its diplomatic relations with others overseas.

To speak out of both sides of its mouth, to contradict itself.

It appears over a dozen times in the solicitor general's oral argument.

And at least six times in his opinion,

Justice Kenley says that the real problem here, as you just suggested,

was that it's almost that Congress didn't go full in a whole hog.

Didn't go to the full loaf and change the United States view.

But instead was insisting that the president,

even though our view is that we don't have a view on Jerusalem sovereignty,

we're going to force the executive in interactions with those overseas

to say that we do, and that that contradiction in the executive voice

is really constitutional evil to be avoided here.

...