Living in California, fortunately, our governor has already declared an emergency and set aside state funds to mitigate the crisis to come. Be prepared. This is not a drill...
As an external observer, I have the increasingly clear impression that the worst-case assessments are coming true. As a people, you have chosen a path whose consequences are difficult to predict. Still, everything points to a possible collapse: the isolation you’ve embraced—and the way you’ve carried it out, projecting an image of hyperpower to coerce the rest of the world—may come back to haunt you sooner rather than later.
As one intellectual here puts it, you are a society in the midst of adolescence, overly absorbed in itself. I share that view. What’s most concerning is the lack of any real willingness to stop this experiment. I sincerely hope I’m wrong.
It takes courage and character from the governors of which you speak to accomplish what you prescribe. Our current electoral system leaves us with men and women with those qualities severely lacking.
When the men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, after signing the Declaration of Independence and during the Revolutionary War, they unanimously agreed on two conditions that needed to be protected in creating this new government.
First, they need to find a way to prevent any emperor, monarch, or other ruler from governing this country. They established a government with three branches instead of just one.
Second, power in the country would rest entirely with the citizens; they should constantly correct and oversee the government through their votes. These men created a separate branch of government where the people's representatives would vote on and supervise the other two branches; they believed this would keep power in the hands of the citizens. These two principles had to be incorporated into the design of this constitution: no rule by kings and government oversight by the citizens.
Today, we have a madman in the White House, billionaires with their money controlling Congress, two Supreme Court justices on their payroll, and they are working to reduce the voting power of citizens, so we are suffering.
Unfortunately, two conditions were beyond their understanding. If they had known about these two conditions when designing this government, they might have changed the map or the ideas in their constitution. Remember, in 1787, the population of the Thirteen Colonies was 4 million, and their western border was the Mississippi River. If they had known that their country would grow to a population of 380 million and cover a land area of 3.8 million square miles, I believe they would have put safeguards in place, such as limiting the country's territory to its current size. They were representatives of the thirteen states, aiming to control the conditions that would give them a sense of limits and control. The future expansion of this country would threaten their way of thinking, so they would limit their own growth by excluding other territories.
The next step beyond their recognition was the future existence of billionaires and MAGA organizations that would control their country with their wealth; they were not royalty or kings, but their power was such that they could force the government into submission. If they had known about this possibility, I think they would have included controlling documents in the Constitution. Even with whatever precautions they implement, we are witnessing our democratic government die, along with our way of life and our values, which are disappearing and being destroyed.
I understand that death is an ongoing process in nature; things die, leading to new growth. We are witnessing the decline of our government, marking the end of a 250-year chapter. We don't have a king ruling us, but other forces are taking control and limiting our citizens' ability to voice their opinions through votes. These changes are happening, and as a result, our government is dying. The compost of dead things can serve as fertilizer for something new.
We know one thing about our enormous, unruly, diverse, and dysfunctional states: how their size contributes to stagnation in our government, where factions clash and wait for their turn to take control and push their ideas. We see this daily and observe the variety of ideas, principles, and rules of social responsibility that have existed throughout our history. This is our compost, and we must grow from it to build a new and better government. We are aware of and accept corruption in every aspect of our lives—our government, our businesses—and consider it inevitable. If we returned control of our government to the smaller states, they could better manage corruption. Smaller states would allow for greater oversight of abuses and corruption. America, we are a land of creative thinkers, and we can use our current circumstances as compost for our future ideas.
What's wrong with this picture? The U.S. Supreme Court reined in federal agencies' ability to pass regulations not spelled out in statutes (see Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 28 June 2024), but so far, no court has reined in Trump's Department of Defense's ability to prosecute a war not declared by Congress.
“Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, US emergency war powers allowing the President to initiate hostilities last for 60 days, followed by a 30-day mandatory withdrawal period, unless Congress authorizes a longer period or declares war. The President must notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops, triggering this 60-day…”. Was Congress not officially notified after 48 hours?
"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-inChief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or
into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a
declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Which one of those covers "some fatwas and hired assassins"? The reality is that Trump launched this horrifically ill advised war in the face of no imminent threat of attack and with no statutory authorization from Congress.
Not when words are given their plain and ordinary meaning it isn't. #3 covers a "national emergency" that was "created" (past tense) by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possession, or its armed forces. There had been no attack. There was no imminent risk of one. There certainly was no national emergency requiring an immediate response by the United States without first obtaining prior statutory authorization from Congress.
Trying to use a declaration by the Ayatollahs made 47 years ago or unspecified past acts of proxies and assassins as a basis for arguing that the requirement of a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the United States under #3 was met only works by making an absurd mockery of the English language.
I’m always wary when people say it was worse because we don’t have an internalize time frame extensive for more that 3 or 4 generations. Some of what’s come causing us major problems is almost 300,000 years old. When we left hunting & gathering for farming.
May we send this, or a version of it ( with attribution ), to our governors?
OF COURSE!
Just checking
Living in California, fortunately, our governor has already declared an emergency and set aside state funds to mitigate the crisis to come. Be prepared. This is not a drill...
As an external observer, I have the increasingly clear impression that the worst-case assessments are coming true. As a people, you have chosen a path whose consequences are difficult to predict. Still, everything points to a possible collapse: the isolation you’ve embraced—and the way you’ve carried it out, projecting an image of hyperpower to coerce the rest of the world—may come back to haunt you sooner rather than later.
As one intellectual here puts it, you are a society in the midst of adolescence, overly absorbed in itself. I share that view. What’s most concerning is the lack of any real willingness to stop this experiment. I sincerely hope I’m wrong.
Yes, Mike. Now. Whatever is possible now. Yes.
It takes courage and character from the governors of which you speak to accomplish what you prescribe. Our current electoral system leaves us with men and women with those qualities severely lacking.
You are right! This is a time for our Governors to act.
@Gavin Newsom @JB Pritzker @Tim Miller @The Bulwark
It’s been overlooked that Citizens United enslaved state politics to donors too. They have no real freedom of action.
SOMETHING IS DYING
When the men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, after signing the Declaration of Independence and during the Revolutionary War, they unanimously agreed on two conditions that needed to be protected in creating this new government.
First, they need to find a way to prevent any emperor, monarch, or other ruler from governing this country. They established a government with three branches instead of just one.
Second, power in the country would rest entirely with the citizens; they should constantly correct and oversee the government through their votes. These men created a separate branch of government where the people's representatives would vote on and supervise the other two branches; they believed this would keep power in the hands of the citizens. These two principles had to be incorporated into the design of this constitution: no rule by kings and government oversight by the citizens.
Today, we have a madman in the White House, billionaires with their money controlling Congress, two Supreme Court justices on their payroll, and they are working to reduce the voting power of citizens, so we are suffering.
Unfortunately, two conditions were beyond their understanding. If they had known about these two conditions when designing this government, they might have changed the map or the ideas in their constitution. Remember, in 1787, the population of the Thirteen Colonies was 4 million, and their western border was the Mississippi River. If they had known that their country would grow to a population of 380 million and cover a land area of 3.8 million square miles, I believe they would have put safeguards in place, such as limiting the country's territory to its current size. They were representatives of the thirteen states, aiming to control the conditions that would give them a sense of limits and control. The future expansion of this country would threaten their way of thinking, so they would limit their own growth by excluding other territories.
The next step beyond their recognition was the future existence of billionaires and MAGA organizations that would control their country with their wealth; they were not royalty or kings, but their power was such that they could force the government into submission. If they had known about this possibility, I think they would have included controlling documents in the Constitution. Even with whatever precautions they implement, we are witnessing our democratic government die, along with our way of life and our values, which are disappearing and being destroyed.
I understand that death is an ongoing process in nature; things die, leading to new growth. We are witnessing the decline of our government, marking the end of a 250-year chapter. We don't have a king ruling us, but other forces are taking control and limiting our citizens' ability to voice their opinions through votes. These changes are happening, and as a result, our government is dying. The compost of dead things can serve as fertilizer for something new.
We know one thing about our enormous, unruly, diverse, and dysfunctional states: how their size contributes to stagnation in our government, where factions clash and wait for their turn to take control and push their ideas. We see this daily and observe the variety of ideas, principles, and rules of social responsibility that have existed throughout our history. This is our compost, and we must grow from it to build a new and better government. We are aware of and accept corruption in every aspect of our lives—our government, our businesses—and consider it inevitable. If we returned control of our government to the smaller states, they could better manage corruption. Smaller states would allow for greater oversight of abuses and corruption. America, we are a land of creative thinkers, and we can use our current circumstances as compost for our future ideas.
Agree, but what follows the declaration?
What's wrong with this picture? The U.S. Supreme Court reined in federal agencies' ability to pass regulations not spelled out in statutes (see Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 28 June 2024), but so far, no court has reined in Trump's Department of Defense's ability to prosecute a war not declared by Congress.
“Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, US emergency war powers allowing the President to initiate hostilities last for 60 days, followed by a 30-day mandatory withdrawal period, unless Congress authorizes a longer period or declares war. The President must notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops, triggering this 60-day…”. Was Congress not officially notified after 48 hours?
Was the US attacked? Did the 48-hour notice comply with the WPA ‘73?
Hmmm I recall some fatwas and hired assassins …
And your reply relates to the question I posed how?
"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-inChief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or
into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a
declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Which one of those covers "some fatwas and hired assassins"? The reality is that Trump launched this horrifically ill advised war in the face of no imminent threat of attack and with no statutory authorization from Congress.
Arguably #3.
Also the ayatollahs declared war in 1979 and have continued to declare and to do so while working through proxies and assassins.
Not when words are given their plain and ordinary meaning it isn't. #3 covers a "national emergency" that was "created" (past tense) by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possession, or its armed forces. There had been no attack. There was no imminent risk of one. There certainly was no national emergency requiring an immediate response by the United States without first obtaining prior statutory authorization from Congress.
Trying to use a declaration by the Ayatollahs made 47 years ago or unspecified past acts of proxies and assassins as a basis for arguing that the requirement of a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the United States under #3 was met only works by making an absurd mockery of the English language.
I’m always wary when people say it was worse because we don’t have an internalize time frame extensive for more that 3 or 4 generations. Some of what’s come causing us major problems is almost 300,000 years old. When we left hunting & gathering for farming.