Niko Bowie

I believe you! Not implying otherwise.

I don’t think that’s true either, but we’ll see

I understand this perspective. I doubt I could persuade you on Bluesky that it’s misguided. But there is a rich American tradition, both before and long after Marbury, that insists judicial supremacy defies the rule of law and is far more dangerous for democracy than your hypothetical intervention.

Why not?

I think it’s entirely defensible to say the role of courts is to enforce federal law, not defy it. (Or: ban horizontal review, preserve vertical). The 1857-70 Republican Party paradigm of “require courts to enforce our laws against states but prohibit courts from blocking our laws” is a good one!

“The Unwillingness to Call This Illegal Is a Terrible Mistake”

Five Questions to Oona A. Hathaway

Read it in English here:

verfassungsblog.de/the-unwillin...

And in German here:

verfassungsblog.de/die-weigerun...

The lane is open for a 2028 candidate to pledge to accept jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

In response to our YaleAAUP campaign to get codified academic freedom protections - which shockingly we do not have - Yale has created a committee to make a "statement." A sign that we are making progress. But nowhere close to where we need to be. More here --> yaledailynews.com/articles/pro...

The Most Chilling Detail in the U.S. Attack on an Iranian Naval Ship The Iranian warship was taking part in an international exercise with many other countries—including the United States.

This is a chilling crime. A shame on our country. The Iranian ship was unarmed. The US knew this. The sailors were murdered by our navy, and the survivors were left to die at sea.
newrepublic.com/post/207429/...

Congress could, and should, ban this. Impose the same rule nationwide as some states already have: if an incumbent doesn't file for reelection by the deadline, the window to file gets extended a week or two.

Mr. Massie, who cosponsored the measure with Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, noted that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the president to go around Congress and exercise unilateral authority to use force only if there has been a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization given or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States. "None of those conditions exist today," Mr. Massie said. But Republicans opposing the resolution argued that Mr. Trump was well within his legal authority to use force. We have seen Iran as an imminent threat against America not just for the last four days, not just for the last four months or four years, but for the last 40 years," said Representative Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. "Iran's terror, which has caused the death of thousands of Americans — it has to stop," he added. "They don't warn us when they're going to kill our Americans. They are an imminent threat."

The GOP’s position is this is self-defense because Iran has been imminently about to attack us for . . . 40 years?

“Accuracy” in this context is impossible to assess independently of who is doing the assessment. The president’s longtime view of his constitutional power is enormous. Congress, by statute, has adopted a narrower view. Both may appeal to the constitution, but only one has specific law on its side

I also disagree that the rest of the statute is written as if 2(c) isn’t binding. It’s written in light of 2(c)—eg, the reporting requirements are written in light of force used with (2) statutory authorization or (3) an emergency. The leg veto is written contemplating (3) an emergency

It’s more than a finding. A law saying a president may remove an officer only if A, B, or C is true is violated if the president removes an officer for D.

I’m aware of how OLC has long interpreted 2(c). I think that interpretation is far too narrow. It matters not only that nothing in the Constitution permits this, but also Congress has enacted legislation confirming that nothing permits this.

It's almost like the Trump presidency is ... the Chadha presidency ...

It’s an interpretation embodied in law. Current law says the president can introduce force into hostilities only in three circumstances. None of those are present here. That’s a violation.

I’d support additional consequences for a violation. But it violates this as much as it does the Constitution

article 8bis of the rome statute of the international criminal court

continuation of article 8bis

posting, once again, the well-established definition of the crime of aggression in the rome statute for the ICC

“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Judgment of the international Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany.

I disagree that “violates the Constitution” should be read in isolation from Sec. 2. That section is how current law interprets presidential power, and the president is violating that interpretation.

Trump Vetoes Measure to Force End to U.S. Involvement in Yemen War A man inspecting the site of an airstrike by the Saudi-led coalition last week in Sana, Yemen. Hani Mohammed/Associated Press By Mark Landler and Peter Baker April 16, 2019 WASHINGTON - President Trump vetoed a bipartisan resolution on Tuesday that would have forced an end to American military involvement in Saudi Arabia's civil war in Yemen, rejecting an appeal by lawmakers to his own deeply rooted instincts to withdraw the United States from bloody foreign conflicts. The veto, only the second time Mr. Trump has used his power to block legislation passed by both houses of

The Court declared this sort of congressional check unconstitutional. It said the president has to be able to veto meaningful votes by Congress. And because of the Court’s flawed interpretation of the Constitution, the president has simply ignored Congress.

It’s worth emphasizing that the Supreme Court has propped up this presidential lawlessness.

When Congress enacted limits on presidential power in 1973, it included an enforcement provision. If the president said there’s an “emergency from attack” and Congress disagreed, it could order troops home.

Trump might start a war with Iran. Can anyone stop him? Trump might start a war with Iran. Can anyone stop him? Congress, public opinion, and administration insiders aren’t reliable constraints on Trump’s foreign policy decisions.

Quick reactions after learning that no, nobody could stop him. 1/ goodauthority.org/news/trump-m... 1/

Trump is far from the first president to violate these promises. But he must be the last.

UN Charter: 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 51 Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Mem- (continued)

ber of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

A foundational principle of our treaties is our promise not to attack other countries absent a resolution from the UN Security Council or an armed attack by that country that requires self defense.

SEC. 2. [50 U.S.C. 1541] (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the cir-cumstances, and to the continued use of such torces in hostilities or in such situations. (b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief 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.

The Constitution makes federal law and treaties the supreme law of the land. Federal law says the president may not introduce US forces into “hostilities” absent (1) a declaration of war, (2) statutory authorization, or (3) “a national emergency created by attack” on the US or its forces.

This is an unjust, illegal war. It violates our treaties and our laws. Presidential impunity must end.

My book is available for pre-order! Get your copy here: www.cambridge.org/us/universit...

I met Jesse Jackson when I was a kid. He taught me to say “I am somebody. I’m black and I’m proud.” RIP to a real one

Trump administration drops appeal of court order blocking $1.2-billion UCLA settlement The Trump administration dropped its appeal of a major higher education case in which a federal judge blocked its $1.2-billion settlement proposal to UCLA over alleged civil rights violations. It will...

This is a genuinely huge, sweeping victory today for the University of California—or rather, for us, its faculty, acting through our faculty associations, while the UC itself maintained a strict policy of deer-in-headlights silence.

The Trump admin has given up its appeal of a powerful injunction: