Investigating the Controversy of Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act and its Future Implications

Abstract

Since the creation of the U.S. constitution, the founding fathers were keen to establish the system of checks and balances; a system that would separate the powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, so those branches hold equal power and are required to control each other in order to avoid each branch obtaining too much power, for instance the president can veto a bill passed by Congress, in return Congress also can override the president‘s veto and pass the bill without his approval. JASTA law is a good example of that, a law designed by congress during Obama‘s presidency, it allows U.S. citizens to sue the Saudi government and individuals for their role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The research provides a historical background about JASTA, and analyzes why this bill was rejected by Obama, as he considered it a mistake that has serious consequences on the United States such as financial punishment because it dispensed a strong financial ally, which is Saudi Arabia, not to mention the other damages that will threaten America‘s security and destabilize its international sovereignty. Despite all these reasons, congress insisted on overriding president‘s veto because it has hidden motives to pass the bill.