International Law and Politics > Likes and Comments
date
newest »
newest »
July 25, 2024 Remarks by Vice President Kamala Harris Following Meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of IsraelFor the full text of Vice-President Harris’s remarks, see https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-r.... For the YouTube video, see https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politi....
Excerpts:
From when I was a young girl collecting funds to plant trees for Israel to my time in the United States Senate and now at the White House, I’ve had an unwavering commitment to the existence of the state of Israel, to its security, and to the people of Israel.In all probability, Kamala Harris will soon be the official candidate of the Democratic Party for president for the November 20024 election. In my view, this speech (which I saw, in part, live and later, in full, on YouTube) was presidential in its seriousness, in its careful analysis, and in Harris’s sober but effective delivery and demeanor.
I’ve said it many times, but it bears repeating: Israel has a right to defend itself, and how it does so matters.
Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization. On October 7, Hamas triggered this war when it massacred 1,200 innocent people, including 44 Americans. Hamas has committed horrific acts of sexual violence and took 250 hostages. . . .
I also expressed with the prime minister my serious concern about the scale of human suffering in Gaza, including the death of far too many innocent civilians. And I made clear my serious concern about the dire humanitarian situation there, with over 2 million people facing high levels of food insecurity and half a million people facing catastrophic levels of acute food insecurity.
What has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating — the images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third, or fourth time. We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering. And I will not be silent. . . .
And ultimately, I remain committed to a path forward that can lead to a two-state solution. And I know right now it is hard to conceive of that prospect, but a two-state solution is the only path that ensures Israel remains a secure, Jewish, and democratic state and one that ensures Palestinians can finally realize the freedom, security, and prosperity that they rightly deserve.
And I will close with this, then. It is important for the American people to remember the war in Gaza is not a binary issue. However, too often the conversation is binary, when the reality is anything but.
So, I ask my fellow Americans to help encourage efforts to acknowledge the complexity, the nuance, and the history of the region.
Let us all condemn terrorism and violence. Let us all do what we can to prevent the suffering of innocent civilians. And let us condemn antisemitism, Islamophobia, and hate of any kind. And let us work to unite our country.
ADDENDUM TO MY PRECEDING POST:The following is an excerpt from David Brooks’s July 25, 2024 column (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/op...) in the New York Times:
As vice president, Harris has earned a reputation for being focused in meetings, for asking the right questions, for asking people to get to the point, for her ability to size up a situation. “My bias has always been to speak factually, to speak accurately, to speak precisely about issues and matters that have potentially great consequence,” she told The Times last fall. “I find it off-putting to just engage in platitudes. I much prefer to deconstruct an issue and speak of it in a way that hopefully elevates public discourse and educates the public.”(In accordance with my New York Times subscription, the foregoing link provides access to this column for 30 days without charge, notwithstanding the usual New York Times paywall.)
I think that Harris’s July 25, 2024 remarks linked in the preceding post are a stellar example of her self-description quoted in the preceding paragraph. This, to my mind, is an excellent—and rarely seen—capability of a political leader.
Kamala Harris’s Foreign Policy ViewsThis July 30, 2024 Washington Post article provides a good explanation of the foreign policy views of Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive (at this time) nominee of the Democratic Party for president of the United States in the November 2024 election: https://wapo.st/3WGA6VI. (As a result of my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for fourteen days, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
Venezuela and Its Kleptocratic AutocracyAlthough exit polls in the July 28, 2024 Venezuelan election show overwhelming support for the candidate opposing President Nicolás Maduro's reelection, Maduro’s government claims that he won the election. For background on how Venezuela became a kleptocratic autocracy and its political, economic, and migration consequences, see Anne Applebaum, Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World (New York: Doubleday, 2024), especially chapter 2, and Julie Turkewitz, “What Happened to Venezuela’s Democracy?,” New York Times, July 30, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/wo.... (As a result of my New York Times subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for thirty days, notwithstanding the usual New York Times paywall.)
I am cross-filing the present post in the “International Law and Politics” and “Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism vs. Rule of Law” topics of this Goodreads group.
August 7, 2024 Update
See this August 6, 2024 New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/06/wo.... (As a result of my New York Times subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for thirty days, notwithstanding the usual New York Times paywall.)
Ecuador too. I was there some years ago and found the whole country tacitly ruled by just five powerful family dynasties. They fill all the vital posts in gov't & industry. Favors are distributed freely to their friends; everyone else can go hang.
Feliks wrote: "Ecuador too. I was there some years ago and found the whole country tacitly ruled by just five powerful family dynasties. They fill all the vital posts in gov't & industry. Favors are distributed f..."Thanks, Feliks, for the additional info.
re: msg #269, AEJ, Nov 10, 10:48amhttps://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Alan wrote: "The varying meanings of the Palestinian slogan “From the River to the Sea” ..."
This type of slogan is becoming known by a new term: 'dog whistle'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whi...
I personally don't feel adding ugly 'layers-of-coded-language' atop 'other-layers-of-coding' really benefits anyone. It results in more communication, but less listening.
Feliks wrote: "I personally don't feel adding ugly 'layers-of-coded-language' atop 'other-layers-of-coding' really benefits anyone. It results in more communication, but less listening"The phrase "from the river to the sea" seems to mean different things to different people. It could mean that an overall secular state should be established from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea , composed of both Palestinians and Jews and based on democratic principles (one person, one vote, with constitutional protections against majority or minority tyranny). Or it could mean that the Jews should be expelled from Israel, and the Palestinians should rule, theocratically or otherwise, over the entire territory. As I understand the facts on the ground, neither of these scenarios is likely to happen. However this may be, I am, and always have been, opposed to theocracy, whether the quasi-theocracy that exists today in Israel or the kind of theocracy that exists today in Iran or Afghanistan. The only practical solution is, I think, a two-state solution with freedom of conscience protected in both states. I don't, however, have much hope for such a resolution as long as each side fanatically thinks that God or Allah is on their side. In my view, the situation will remain insane as long as religious extremists are in control, either directly or indirectly, which means that it won't be resolved at any time in the near future.
President Ronald Reagan’s Foreign (and Domestic) Policy See my comments regarding Max Boot’s discussions of Reagan at https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
TRUMP AND UKRAINESee conservative opinion columnist David French’s September 15, 2024 analysis titled “Why Trump Won’t Say He Wants Ukraine to Win” at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/15/op.... (As a result of my New York Times subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for thirty days, notwithstanding the usual New York Times paywall.)
PROPOSED ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFEDERATIONAn online September 19, 2024 Foreign Affairs article titled “A Two-State Solution That Can Work: The Case for an Israeli-Palestinian Confederation,” can be accessed at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel.... (This Foreign Affairs article can be freely accessed, notwithstanding a subscription paywall, by agreeing to receive weekly/occasional emails from Foreign Affairs regarding their current articles.) The authors are the following: (1) Omar M. Dajani, who is the Carol Olson Professor of International Law at McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, and who, from 1999 to 2001, served as legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team in peace talks with Israel, and (2) Limor Yehuda, who is a Senior Research Fellow and leader of the Partnership-Based Israeli-Palestinian Peace project at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, a Lecturer at the Hebrew University Faculty of Law, and the author of Collective Equality: Democracy and Human Rights in Ethno-National Conflicts . These authors are co-chairs of the joint board of A Land for All, an Israeli-Palestinian movement that advocates a confederal vision of “two states, one homeland.”
Excerpt from this article:
[A]nalysts often argue that physical separation between Palestinians and Israeli Jews is necessary for the sake of the latter’s security. They suggest it can help prevent terrorist attacks and reduce interethnic tensions. But this argument is belied by experience. Inside Israel, where Jews live alongside some two million Palestinian citizens of Israel, interethnic violence has been rare. In contrast, the forced isolation of the Gaza Strip from Israel and the West Bank not only failed to prevent recurrent wars and cross-border attacks but also contributed to them. Even if there could be barriers fully segregating Israeli Jews from their Palestinian neighbors in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israel’s major population centers would remain vulnerable to attack. Everyone is simply too close together.
For most advocates of separation, the answer to this dilemma has been to maintain Israel’s overriding control over the entire territory. This position was detailed in March by Yair Lapid—a centrist Israeli politician—who called for a two-state solution “that consists of a power advantage in our favor, that creates two political entities that are not equal in power, or in value. One is a demilitarized Palestinian state, that is small and dependent on us, and [the other is] a strong Israel that has regained its self-confidence.” But this is no two-state solution at all. Instead, it would leave Palestinians’ lives and livelihoods in the hands of Israeli institutions that have consistently shown flagrant disregard for them. It is a vision of perpetual domination and conflict: the opposite of mutual self-determination and peaceful coexistence . . . .
If separation cannot work, and if a one-state solution is unattainable for the foreseeable future, it may seem as if there is simply no good option. According to recent polls, that is the view taken by a large proportion of Israelis and Palestinians. But an increasing array of observers, us included, believe that a two-state confederation offers a workable middle ground. It would offer both peoples national self-determination while also providing a just framework for managing their attachments to, and interdependence in, their common homeland.
re: excerpts in msg #312, AEJhttps://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Reminds me of Jane Jacobs, and her history of the Lower East Side. Many rich ideas in her work but with regard to violence I think the LES demonstrates that if you mingle ethnicities in among each other so that they are families and neighbors, they're not going to bomb each other. Gangs may emerge (like the Mafia) but those are easily handled with standard LEA rather than troops.
IRAN ASSASSINATION PLOTSSee this October 11, 2024 Politico article: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10....
UKRAINE UPDATESee this October 11, 2024 Politico article titled “Russia gains ground in Ukraine, but at steep cost”: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10....
THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAWSee the December 25, 2024 Politico article titled “From Nuremberg to now: How a war crimes trial in Sweden is changing legal history” at https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12....
HYBRID ATTACKS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICSSee this January 4, 2025 New York Times gift article titled “Drones, Exploding Parcels and Sabotage: How Hybrid Tactics Target the West”: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/04/wo....
Alan wrote: "PROPOSED ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFEDERATIONAn online September 19, 2024 Foreign Affairs article titled “A Two-State Solution That Can Work: The Case for an Israeli-Palestinian Confederation,” can ..."
Any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must avoid being based on religious or ideological premises, as these perpetuate tensions and conflict. Governance and the destiny of nations should be guided by principles of religious neutrality, focusing on equality, justice, and the promotion of universal human rights.
Religiosity or extreme ideologies, when applied to politics, hinder the creation of an environment of cooperation and coexistence. The only path to a sustainable solution requires broader spiritual literacy, where both sides develop a greater understanding and respect for different beliefs without allowing them to directly influence political decisions.
The concept of secularism (religious neutrality in governance) emerges as a viable solution, establishing that state power should neither favor nor oppress any group based on their faith or ideology. Thus, a two-state confederation promoting autonomy and equality for Israelis and Palestinians can be built on secular principles, prioritizing social well-being and shared economic and cultural progress.
Without this separation of religion or ideology from the public sphere, any agreement will constantly be at risk of being manipulated by sectarian interests, perpetuating cycles of hostility. Therefore, lasting peace requires the establishment of neutral and inclusive structures that prioritize human dignity over individual or collective convictions.
Ricardo wrote: "Without this separation of religion or ideology from the public sphere, any agreement will constantly be at risk of being manipulated by sectarian interests, perpetuating cycles of hostility."I agree. For historical background, see my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience and the appendix (“The Conflicts among the Claims to Revelation” in my book Reason and Human Ethics (a PDF replica of which is online at https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re...).
FROM ISOLATIONISM TO IMPERIALISM: TRUMP’S EMERGING FOREIGN POLICYDonald J. Trump, who will become president of the USA for the second time on January 20, 2025, ran for president on a platform of isolationism. Now, however, he is sounding imperialistic themes, vowing economic or military coercion to take Greenland, Canada (as the fifty-first US state), and the Panama Canal. He has also said he will rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” and that “all hell will break out in the Middle East” if Hamas has not released Israeli hostages by the time of his accession. His world’s-richest-man “first buddy” Elon Musk has suggested that the United States “should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government.” For details, see this January 7, 2025 AP article: https://apnews.com/article/trump-pres....
Alan wrote: "FROM ISOLATIONISM TO IMPERIALISM: TRUMP’S EMERGING FOREIGN POLICYDonald J. Trump, who will become president of the USA for the second time on January 20, 2025, ran for president on a platform of ..."
When a nation adopts an aggressive stance to subjugate neighboring populations or annex territories, especially in contexts where it faces little resistance, it creates a dangerous precedent in the international order. This lack of opposition can embolden other regimes, often authoritarian or with imperialist aspirations, to follow the same path, exploiting the chaos to pursue geographic, economic, or strategic gains.
As a result, we witness the emergence of three problematic categories on the global stage: authoritarian regimes with expansionist ambitions, fanatic movements seeking to impose their religious ideologies, and extravagant leaders who, in pursuit of notoriety, resort to extreme and often destructive actions. This cycle of actions and reactions not only destabilizes entire regions but also undermines international law and geopolitical balance, fostering an environment conducive to prolonged conflicts and humanitarian crises.
The only way to counter this dynamic is for the international community to effectively reinforce the respect for sovereignty, human rights, and peaceful conflict resolution. Additionally, strengthening multilateral institutions and applying diplomatic pressure should be priorities to mitigate the damage caused by imperialist or fanatical actions, which can lead to catastrophic consequences for humanity as a whole.
Ricardo wrote: "Alan wrote: "FROM ISOLATIONISM TO IMPERIALISM: TRUMP’S EMERGING FOREIGN POLICYDonald J. Trump, who will become president of the USA for the second time on January 20, 2025, ran for president on a..."
Well said. I agree.
“As US recedes, NATO scrambles to find a new leader”The foregoing is the title of this informative February 16, 2025 Politico Pro article: https://www.politico.eu/article/us-re.... (Note: You may have to enter your email address or open a Politico account to access this article, but there is no paywall as such.)
Trump Administration: Russia Is Not the “Aggressor” in UkraineSee this February 21, 2025 New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/wo... (gift article).
Excerpts:
“The United States is opposing calling Russia the aggressor in the war with Ukraine in a Group of 7 statement being drafted to mark the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, four senior officials from countries involved said on Thursday.
“The American objections to the statement come after President Trump earlier this week blamed Ukraine for starting the war, which in fact began with Russia’s attack on Ukraine. . . .
“Diplomats are continuing to work on the language in the draft, which currently describes ‘a devastating war that began with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,’ but does not use the words ‘Russian aggression’ or ‘aggressors,’ which have been in Group of 7 statements since 2022, senior German and European officials said.”
Former Soviet Intelligence Officer Claims KGB Recruited TrumpSee this February 21, 2025 article in The Daily Beast: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi.... I have no idea whether it is true, though Trump continues to parrot the Moscow party line.
Alan wrote: "HYBRID ATTACKS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS":(
Link somehow hits a paywall
Feliks wrote: "Alan wrote: "HYBRID ATTACKS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS":(
Link somehow hits a paywall"
That was #317, posted on January 5, 2025: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/.... It was a gift article, but New York Times gift articles expire 30 days after they are gifted. More than 30 days have passed, which is why you can no longer open it.
This is kind of old news, considering all that has happened since Trump took office on January 20, 2025. I recall reading that the government issued a statement (I don’t remember whether it was the Biden administration or the Trump administration) saying that all of the sightings were known to the government and involved known operations.
However, the article also addressed hybrid attacks, or the capability for same, by foreign governments. You can probably find the latest information about that by an internet search on Bing or Google.
Sorry, no Martians. The closest we can get to extraterrestrial life is Elon Musk, who wants to go (return?) to Mars.
Agreed. It's impossible for humans to live like lab mice in filthy, reeking, little tin cans. Whatever our problems are, we must solve them here on the world we were given.
“GERMANY’S MERZ VOWS ‘INDEPENDENCE’ FROM TRUMP’S AMERICA, WARNING NATO MAY SOON BE DEAD”The foregoing is the title of this February 23, 2025 PoliticoPro article: https://www.politico.eu/article/fried.... If you have difficulty accessing this article, see the summary of it at https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/....
Excerpts from the PoliticoPro article:
Friedrich Merz did not even wait for the final results in Germany's election before delivering what could well be a defining verdict on U.S. President Donald Trump, consigning Europe's 80-year alliance with the United States to the past.February 24, 2025 Note: For an updated account of the election results in Germany and Merz’s plans, see https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/....
The Trump administration does not care about Europe and is aligning with Russia, said Merz, who is on course to become Germany's new leader. The continent, he warned, must urgently strengthen its defenses and potentially even find a replacement for NATO — within months.
Merz's comments mark a historic watershed: They reveal how deeply Trump has shaken the political foundations of Europe, which has depended on American security guarantees since 1945 . . . .
On Friday, Merz suggested it was time to explore nuclear cooperation between France, the U.K. and Germany (and others) to replace the American nuclear umbrella that has guaranteed European safety from Russian attack. His speculation was anything but idle.
INTERNATIONAL REALIGNMENT: US AND RUSSIA VERSUS EUROPEThe realignment of international politics is now complete. For more than 80 years, the United States opposed aggression by authoritarian states—from opposition to Nazi Germany in World War II, to opposing the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and to opposing Russian aggression in recent decades (not to mention other instances). We have especially supported Europe against such authoritarian aggressors. Now, in the Trump administration, we are allied with the aggressor (Putin’s Russia) against its victim (Ukraine). In fact, it is authoritarian Russia and the emerging authoritarian United States in a de facto alliance against democratic Europe and Ukraine. Although I disagree with the conservative views of National Review on most issues, I agree with the analysis in the following column: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner.... (If you experience a paywall, try this summary: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi.... I was able to access the National Review article by clicking the link in the summary.) See also this February 28, 2025 New York Times gift article: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/us....
“TOP TRUMP ALLIES HOLD SECRET TALKS WITH ZELENSKYY’S UKRAINIAN OPPONENTS”The foregoing is the title of this March 6, 2025 Politico article: https://www.politico.eu/article/donal....
EXCERPTS:
Four senior members of Donald Trump’s entourage have held secret discussions with some of Kyiv’s top political opponents to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, just as Washington aligns with Moscow in seeking to lever the Ukrainian president out of his job. . . .
The discussions centered on whether Ukraine could hold quick presidential elections. These are being delayed in line with the country’s constitution because Ukraine remains under martial law. Critics of holding elections say they could be chaotic and play into Russia’s hands, with so many potential voters serving on the front lines or living abroad as refugees. . . .
The key to all of the plans under discussion via back channels is to hold presidential elections after a temporary ceasefire is agreed, but before full-scale peace negotiations get underway in earnest. The idea of an early presidential election is also being pushed by the Kremlin, which has wanted to be rid of Zelenskyy for years.
“A Path to Peace in Ukraine, Minus the Betrayal” The foregoing is the title of conservative David French’s March 6, 2025 column in the New York Times. I think his plan appears to be reasonable. The column can be accessed at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/op.... (In accordance with my New York Times subscription, the foregoing link provides access to this article for thirty days without charge, notwithstanding the usual New York Times paywall.)
“PUTIN WON”The following is the title of the following excellent March 8, 2025 article in The Atlantic magazine: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc... (GIFT ARTICLE).
“Britain and E.U. Strike Landmark Post-Brexit ‘Reset’ Deal”The foregoing is the title of this May 19, 2025 New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/wo.... (As a result of my New York Times subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for 30 days, notwithstanding the usual New York Times paywall.)
“Imperial President at Home, Emperor Abroad: American Foreign Policy in an Age of Unrestrained Executive Power”The foregoing is the title of this June 16, 2025 Foreign Affairs article by Elizabeth N. Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/guest-.... (This is supposed to be a gift link. If you hit a paywall, please let me know.)
I agree with at least 95% of Sanders’s analysis, questioning only a couple of her statements.
Here are some of her many statements with which I agree:
Political scientists who study autocracies recognize this for what it is: a dictator’s foreign policy. Washington has never been a paragon of virtue in its dealings abroad, but the extraordinary nature of Trump’s second term makes clear that presidents before him were indeed more constrained in their foreign policy. Unrestrained, the president is functionally equivalent to a dictator in the realm of national security—one who can translate any impulse into policy on a whim. . . .Saunders’s article discusses at length the implications of this situation for both foreign and domestic policy.
What the first months of Trump’s return to office have really exposed is the accountability vacuum left by the near-complete destruction of checks and balances inside and outside the executive branch. In his second term, Trump has shown just how much power the presidency can still accrue and what happens when a leader with no interest in respecting the limits of this power takes the reins.
A good article; thank you for sharing. Like you, I agree with a lot of what Saunders says. Saunders' diagnosis of the increasingly unfettered Presidency – particularly in relation to foreign and national security policy – is not itself new, as the article notes. The current situation is founded on many, many prior erosions of checks and balances. But it is the latest, and highest, peak in a long mountain chain of prior peaks and foothills of Presidential aggrandisement that winds quite a long way back.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. published 'The Imperial Presidency' in 1973, which analysed the expansion of Presidential power, arguing that the executive branch has gradually but consistently accumulated authority beyond its Constitutional limits, particularly during times of crisis, in a kind of ratchet-effect where Presidential powers will click up a notch but are then not easily unwound to their previous point once the crisis is over; thereby creating as new baseline or new normal that everyone in government becomes accustomed to.
Although the article cites the responses to 9/11, the GFC and the Iraq conflicts as particularly relevant recent watermarks in increasing the scope and reach of Presidential power (and attendant reduction in related accountabilities), they are but discrete examples in the long history of this trend. Schlesinger traced the trend as a consistent friction from the nation's founding up to the Nixon administration. He highlighted how Presidents had long exploited ambiguities in the Constitution, especially regarding war powers and foreign policy, to expand their influence and power, often at the expense of Congress and the rule of law. While the battle of wills between the executive and legislative branches stems from founding, Congress had effectively given up most aspects of the fight by the 1970s. For example, Congress still owns the power to officially declare war, but the last time the United States officially declared war was in 1942 during World War II.
Though Trump is not the originator of the Imperial Presidency, he is by far its biggest beneficiary to-date. Particularly because Trump is happy to be quite open with his ambitions for the executive branch, and he is good at seeing and seizing opportunities: Trump and his advisors have seen there are few effective structural impediments to him ruling in this way, but even more importantly, they’ve seen that the current socio-political environment means there is no effective automatic opposition from the political class or the fourth estate. This had led to him brazenly stress testing the expanded (and expanding) boundaries of authority and deteriorating norms of constraint and prudence.
The Trump camp’s concerted efforts to hollow out the state, or to create a ‘shallow state’, deeply compromises the ability of US democratic institutions and the Civil Service to act as the stewards, over significant spans of time, of American democracy. And the fact that other arms of the government having been willing allies and accomplices in this, namely the Supreme Court and Congress, is particularly galling. The Supreme Court’s ruling that the President enjoys substantial immunity from prosecution for virtually any action related to his official duties is a blatant undermining of what has been the most fundamental aspects of modern democratic theory since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 – the rule of law.
What Trump and his biggest supporters have brought to the table is a concerted effort to properly test the current state of these boundaries, and with little or no pretence of complying with normal protocols and without the usual window-dressing of Presidential humility and modesty, not even paying lip service in many instances to the Congress, courts, states or Constitution. More specifically, given the checks and balances have been largely eroded for decades, the key contribution of Trump not this trend has been to test the appetite of other political, societal and governmental/legal forces to resist or act as reasonable checks. Saunders is correct that the legacy and consequence of this will be far more far reaching than the impact of any of Trump’s policy decisions. It undermines the already shaky edifice of American democracy, respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, and of a competent, impartial and professional Civil Service and robust democratic institutions.
Charles wrote: "A good article; thank you for sharing. Like you, I agree with a lot of what Saunders says. Saunders' diagnosis of the increasingly unfettered Presidency – particularly in relation to foreign and ..."
Well said. I agree, except I'm not too sure about the long-term effects of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision. My analysis of that decision from my perspective as a constitutional lawyer (retired) gives me some hope that it will not be interpreted and applied in a way that prevents prosecutions of presidents in many instances, especially with regard to Trump's actions in his first term (which are now dismissed as a result of his winning the 2024 election) or, possibly, his second term. However this may be, removal by way of impeachment remains a possibility if the Congress ever wakes up from its long sleep. In the present situation, of course, impeachment and removal of Trump would only result in JD Vance becoming president, and it is difficult to say who is worse, Trump or Vance.
I've intended to read Schlesinger's The Imperial Presidency ever since it was first published in 1973 but have never gotten around to it. I've now downloaded the book on Kindle.
Incredibly, only Bernie Sanders and perhaps a few other public figures have questioned Trump's constitutional ability to unilaterally wage war on Iran. Congress has again abdicated its constitutional responsibility. It seems to be ignoring the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Pow...). Certainly, the Congressional authorizations of the use of military force in 2001 (Afghanistan) and 2002 (Iraq) do not apply to the current situation in Iran. Of course, there are unresolved constitutional questions regarding these issues, and the Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere with a president’s decisions on such matters.
NOTE TO ALL: I will be preoccupied with family and medical matters through June 26, 2025, and may not be able respond to comments in this group during most of that period.
Alan E. Johnson
Founding Moderator of the “Political Philosophy and Ethics” Goodreads Group
Independent Philosopher, Historian, Political Scientist, and Legal Scholar
THE JUNE 21, 2025 US ATTACK ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIESThe following June 22, 2025 Atlantic opinion essay by David Frum is titled “Right Move, Wrong Team”: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc... (gift link). Although I don’t necessarily agree with everything in the article, Frum’s analysis is worth consideration.
Excerpt:
Trump did the right thing, but he did that right thing in the wrongest possible way: without Congress, without competent leadership in place to defend the United States against terrorism, and while waging a culture war at home against half the nation. Trump has not put U.S. boots on the ground to fight Iran, but he has put U.S. troops on the ground for an uninvited military occupation of California.
“The Night Chancellor Merz Changed His Mind about Donald Trump”The foregoing is the title of this June 22, 2025 Politico article: https://www.politico.com/news/magazin....
This is an excellent, well-sourced account of the novel situation that confronted Christian Democrat Friedrich Merz as he became chancellor of Germany earlier this year, including the possible withdrawal of the US from the defense of Ukraine, the threat of US imminent withdrawal from NATO, and Russia's hostile intentions toward Europe in general and the Baltic states in particular. Merz reacted in an exemplary fashion and worked with his Social Democratic counterpart, former chancellor Olaf Scholz, to reimagine and reconfigure European defense without the USA. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance were cultivating far-right, pro-Putin parties in Germany and elsewhere.
If Trump had not withdrawn from the 2015 Iran agreement . . . .This January 24, 2025 guest essay by former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (2021-2025) examines the effects of President Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 Iran deal and how that agreement would have dealt with any attempt by Iran to violate it: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/op... (gift article).
“UKRAINE’S PLAN TO STARVE THE RUSSIAN WAR MACHINE”The foregoing is the title of this September 24, 2025 article by Anne Applebaum in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc... (gift article).
CURRENT STATUS OF IRAQSee this November 11, 2025 New York Times gift article: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/11/wo....
UN Security Council Adopts Trump 20-Point Plan for GazaOn September 17, 2025, the UN Security Council adopted President Trump’s 20-point plan for securing peace in Gaza: see https://press.un.org/en/2025/sc16225..... The text of the 20-point plan can be accessed at https://apnews.com/article/trump-plan.... All nations in the Security Council other than Russia and China (both of whom abstained) voted in favor of the resolution.
Although I strongly oppose Trump’s violations of the U.S. Constitution and laws in his apparent attempt to transition to an authoritarian regime, I must admit that his plan for Gaza makes a great deal of sense. I wonder who, in his administration, actually wrote it. If it works, he may get his coveted Nobel Peace Prize after all. It wouldn’t be the first time that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to an authoritarian leader—see Anwar Sadat and Yasser Arafat.
“Hegseth declares end of US 'utopian idealism' with new military strategy”The foregoing is the title of this December 6, 2025 Politico article: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12....
An idea new to me: 'ex post facto' law. It's rather fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post...
para 1
An ex post facto law is a law that retrospectively changes the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; it may extend the statute of limitations; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.
para 2
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).
also para 2
In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, ex post facto laws may be possible, because the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes, within legal constraints.
This is the part I find surprising. I'm going to read further.
Feliks wrote: "also para 2In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, ex post facto laws may be possible, because the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes, within legal constraints. This is the part I find surprising. I'm going to read further."
Yes, the United Kingdom and some other countries follow the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliam... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliam...).
As I explain on pages 316-17 of my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (https://www.academia.edu/13797615/Ala...), Sir Edward Coke, who became Chief Justice of the English Court of Common Pleas, attempted
to uphold the rule of law against the views of James I and Charles I that the monarch was above the law and had absolute power. However, Coke also taught that there were limits to parliamentary legislation. His most famous judicial opinion, Dr. Bonham’s Case, [endnote omitted] was rendered the same year as his pronouncement on the limitations of royal proclamations. In that case, Coke held that “when an Act of Parliament is against Common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common Law will control it, and adjudge such Act to be void [endnote omitted]. More than three centuries later, Sir Winston Churchill observed that “Coke’s claim that the fundamental law of custom and tradition could not be overbourne, even by Crown and Parliament together, and his dream of judges in a Supreme Court of Common Law declaring what was or what was not legal, had been extinguished in England for ever” by the mid-seventeenth-century English Civil Wars, in which “the idea had emerged that an Act of Parliament was the final authority.” Although the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy became established in Great Britain, Coke’s concept of what we now call judicial review “survived . . . across the ocean, one day to emerge in an American revolution directed against both Parliament and Crown”[endnote omitted]. It received its classic American formulation in Chief Justice John Marshall’s Opinion of the Court in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). In concluding that “the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void,” Chief Justice Marshall echoed and developed the logic of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 78 (1788).See also chapter 2 (“Governmental Recognition and Protection of Individual Rights”) of my book Reason and Human Government (https://www.academia.edu/145862733/Al...).
ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WARAs neuroscientist Peter Tse observed, “If there is ever to be a nuclear war in the future, the first launch might start when someone wrongly imagines that the other side is about to launch a nuclear weapon first. We have had some very close calls over the last fifty years. If it had not been for the disobedience of one Russian soldier, you would not be reading this book” (Peter Ulric Tse, Free Imagination: The Deep Roots of Creativity, Freedom and Meaning in the Human Brain and Mind [Oxford University Press, 2024], 24, Kindle). Tse cites this Wikipedia article (“1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident”): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_So....
THE IRAN WAR AND THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTIONThe following April 27, 2026 opinion essay by Erwin Chemerinsky (dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkley) argues that the Trump administration’s war against Iran is illegal under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and will be clearly illegal when the initial 60-day period under that Congressional resolution expires on May 1, 2026: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/27/op... (gift article).
"How Iran Accumulated 11 Tons of Enriched Uranium"The foregoing is the title of this August 29, 2026 New York Times gift article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2....
The foregoing is the title of an August 2014 article (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russia...) in Foreign Affairs magazine. (This Foreign Affairs article can be freely accessed, notwithstanding a subscription paywall, by agreeing to receive weekly/occasional emails from Foreign Affairs regarding their current articles.)