Infringing US Presidential Foreign Policy Powers:

Abstract

The adoption of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) of 2016 gave birth to an important debate both within and outside of the USA. This new law received a wide-ranging bi-partisan backing as an allegedly effective measure in order to deal with the menace of international terrorism on American soil. Despite the widespread sympathy for the 9/11 victims and their families, the Obama administration was not in favor of this measure as it expressed serious concern about possible unintended consequences. The white House’s position was that the act would harm the US economic, diplomatic, and national security interests. This substantial disagreement led to an eventual clash between the two branches of the US government. Consequently, Congress proceeded to override Barrack Obama’s veto to pass the bill. This study aims to investigate how the adoption of JASTA threatened the US presidential power after crossing boundaries by Congress for the sake of fighting terrorism, where the core is to shed light on the extent to which this bill conflicts with the fundamentals of constitutional law.