Showing posts with label Rule of Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rule of Law. Show all posts

Thursday, September 24, 2026

The Collapse of America's Constitutional Order | Jeffrey Sachs

A president stood at the UN and claimed the right to annihilate a civilization. Congress said nothing. That is the constitutional order collapsing in public. I shuddered then, and I shudder now that a president of the United States can stand at the podium of the UN General Assembly, speaking to world leaders in a language of annihilation of other countries and of sending them to hell. It was ghastly, unprecedented, totally disgusting, disgraceful for the United States. But it is also a measure of how broken the constitutional order of the United States is.


Annihilation as Presidential Language
Trump basically said, like a madman—which I think, arguably, he is—that he and he alone will decide the survival of Iran. He said that he has a big, big choice to make. Maybe Iran will be a great country. Maybe Iran will be annihilated. Maybe Trump will send it to hell. And not only was the language vulgar in a way that I certainly could never, in my lifetime, have imagined coming from a president of the United States or anybody standing at the UN podium—because what Trump said was odious and completely in violation of every religious, moral, ethical, and legal standard that we have in this world—it was also a measure of the brazen collapse of our Constitution.

Who Has the Power to Declare War?
Is there a political system where one man decides the fate of another civilization? Is that how the American system works? Of course, the answer is no. The Founding Fathers, who rebelled against a mad King George III, were very explicit in the Declaration of Independence, celebrated this year, 250 years after its issuance. We're in the 250th anniversary, one that Trump says is about our freedom. It was explicit that King George took on the authority to put the military above civil rule.

And when the Founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution, they specifically assigned the power to declare war not to the commander in chief, but solely and exclusively to the United States Congress—not by choice, not if they care about it or want to, not if they want to delegate it or not, but solely to Congress. Trump said yesterday he doesn't care what the public thinks. He doesn't care what the vote is. He says, 'It doesn't even cross my mind.' And earlier this year, when he was asked, 'Well, are there any limits on your power?' he thought about it and said, 'Yes, my morality, but it's my will. It's what I want to do. Otherwise, no, there are no other limits.'

When Congress Fails to Act
What did our Congress do? The majority party in both houses simply remained silent. Trump said he was going to have the difficult choice of whether to annihilate one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, 5,000 years old, twenty times older than the United States of America.

What did our Speaker of the House say? Nothing. What did our Senate majority leader say? Nothing. What did the members of the president's party in Congress say? Nothing. That is the institutional failure. Congress has the constitutional authority over war and the power of the purse. Yet when the president claims the unilateral authority to determine whether another country lives or dies, the institutions constitutionally empowered to check that authority remain silent.

The tens or hundreds of billions of dollars that Trump has wasted of American income in this flagrant war of whim—where is Congress to say, 'You have no authority whatsoever to spend that because only we can decide on the spending and only we can declare war'? This is worse than the Roman Empire. There was a Senate that actually still said something. Our Senate says nothing.

Beyond Partisanship
I am not partisan. And a Democratic president who dared to be as absolutely mad and deranged as this president would probably find subservience in that party too. So I'm not even making a partisan point. I'm making a point about the collapse of our constitutional order.

We are so broken that not only do we have a madman in power, but there is no respect for the constitutional limits on presidential power. The president can make statements, as he made yesterday, unprecedented in the chamber of the General Assembly in front of world leaders, speaking like the worst tyrant or gangster imaginable, and not a murmur from the Republican Party, which dominates the House and the Senate.

The Absence of Institutional Restraint
Have we come to a point where one man, who I happen to think is utterly incompetent, utterly sociopathic, actually—when people are killed under his order, not a moment of reflection or remorse when 150 schoolgirls are murdered, and he knows the truth. He says, ‘Yeah, the Iranians probably did it. We'll find out.' No, not any control at all in our system of government.

So, how I feel? I shudder at the last 24 hours, both at what the president said. It made my skin crawl. I was sitting there in the chamber listening to this madness. I mean, it really was psychopathic madness, speaking in this way, with a vulgarity that is unimaginable. But then I've shuddered since at the lack of response by the leaders—the majority leader of the US Senate, the Speaker of the House, Supreme Court justices, anybody—to say no. In our system of government, it's not one person who decides on the fate of another civilization.

The Grim Constitutional Question
We are a country, we say, first of all, of representation, and the American people are aghast at this. They oppose it overwhelmingly. They do not support this war of Netanyahu and Trump, which is a two-person war of murder and destruction and assassination of leaders of another country. They do not support it.

So this is the grim fact. It wasn't just the awful statements. That was my first reaction. But then I thought, what have we come to when one person can make a statement like this and then remain essentially unchallenged in the United States system of government? Annihilation is not diplomacy. Congressional silence is not restraint. A constitutional republic cannot survive if one man claims the power to decide whether another civilization lives or dies.
 
Quoted from:
Jeffrey D. Sachs (b. 1954) is an American economist, professor, and author specializing in sustainable development, global economics, and international policy. He is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, has advised governments and international organizations, and served as a special advisor to UN Secretaries-General. A 2011 Economist survey named Sachs, Bernanke, and Minsky among the decade's most influential economists.

Friday, November 24, 2023

Legality and Legitimacy | Carl Schmitt

Carl Schmitt ranks among the most original and controversial political thinkers of the twentieth century. His incisive criticisms of Enlightenment political thought and liberal political practice remain as shocking and significant today as when they first appeared in Weimar Germany.
 
 » The emptiness of mere majority calculus deprives legality of all persuasive power. «
 
Legality and Legitimacy was composed in 1932, in the midst of the crisis that would lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic and only a matter of months before Schmitt’s collaboration with the Nazis. Schmitt questions the political viability of liberal constitutionalism, parliamentary government, and the rule of law. Liberal governments, he argues, cannot respond effectively to challenges by radical groups like the Nazis or Communists. Only a presidential regime subject to few, if any, can ensure domestic security in a highly pluralistic society.

Quoted from the introduction to the 2004 first English translation of
 
November 24, 2023 - In the People's Republic of China, Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is linked to citizens' mandatory digital ID. If somebody drives over the speed limit, the speed camera system automatically deducts a fine from their digital wallet.
 
November 24, 2023, President of the European Central Bank (ECB), Christine Lagarde, announced the launch of the European Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), the digital euro. This currency will enable unelected technocrats at the ECB to program how, when, where, on what, and by whom it can be spent, including the imposition of social credit, carbon allowance, and vaccine passport systems. Despite the claim that "cash is here to stay," it's certain that technocrats like Lagarde intend to gradually phase out cash entirely, forcing people to use CBDCs. European Union citizens already face imprisonment or fines for cash transactions above €1,000, but the digital euro's introduction will facilitate financial totalitarianism on a scale that would make even George Orwell wince.
  
November 24, 2023, Christine Anderson, German Member of the European Parliament, explains how CBDCs, in conjunction with digital ID, will be used to exert absolute control over the population: » If you don't comply, they will just shut down your bank account. And it's not like it hasn't happened before. Look to Canada ... There were people standing up for their freedom, for their right not to get some unknown substance injected into their arms. They shut down their bank accounts. So if there was no cash, what are you going to do? They can just eliminate you with a flip of a switch. It's as simple as that. «