Thanks for this excellent reflection, Danielle. The administration's approach to violence (and more importantly, Congress and many citizen's tolerance of it) is captured well by the name of the "operation," the language they use (bombing our little hearts out), and the meme's they post. I sincerely hope we will collectively learn (remember) the value of civilization and the moral commitments/obligations of such an endeavor. I also strongly agree with your diagnosis, here and elsewhere, that Congress bears great responsibility. Are you aware of any efforts to engage the "No Kings" organizers, or work separately, to have a "Save Congress" rally (or something similar, like "Do your Job, Congress" or "Renew the Republic")?
Thank you for broadening this action to its effect on the world. I strongly suspect that many of the beautiful places that you saw in Iran have likely been damaged--there was a nuclear facility at Isfahan.
However, I think that to use the term "Congress" is a misdiagnosis; the problem is actually that one of our political parties, the Republican party, has utterly collapsed. Beyond the Republican collapse, and the cause of it, is the dominance of money in politics. Does my vote mean more than someone else's dark money donation? It doesn't. The first problem, however, is to recognize that Congress no longer functions because the Republican party no longer functions.
The transformation of the Furies into the "well-minded ones" is such a great allusion. I pray we can give rise to a similar transformation in the world and especially within the U.S. --where too many of us have been driven to hate across demographic and ideological lines of difference.
I once wrote an op-ed for our local newspaper about Danielle's Partners in Democracy. The editors modified my op-ed to describe Danielle as a "Classicist Scholar". Danielle just proved the point beyond a doubt. I did not know my job, civilization's job, is to transform those Furies into Eumenides. Thank you Danielle.
May I suggest a slogan such as "No Money" or "No Kings, No Money." There's no way Congress should (or even lawfully could) appropriate more money for Trump's war. Trump violated our Constitution by unilaterally choosing to start a war without the authorization of Congress. Clearly, that's quite bad enough. Congress cannot (without also violating our Constitution) make matters worse by appropriating funds for a war that Congress did not authorize.
To encourage people to ratify our Constitution, James Madison emphasized in Federalist No. 53, “in America” we have “a Constitution established by the people” precisely to establish that it is “unalterable by the government” (our public servants). Indeed, one of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to establish “a government limited, as the federal government will be, by the authority of a paramount Constitution,” i.e., a “Constitution, paramount to the government,” as “security” for “the liberties of the people.”
The members of the House of Representatives are the representatives of the people who (from the outset) were most directly and most often subject to the approval or removal directly by the people. The second sentence of Article I emphasized that the people can replace any or even all the members of the House every two years: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” That is a crucial limitation on the power of the House to initiate laws or start wars for which we, the people, will have to pay.
The importance of the power to remove Representatives every two-years was accentuated even more by another two-year provision in Article I pertaining particularly to war: "no Appropriation of Money" to "raise and support Armies" (for war) may "be for a longer Term than two Years."
The crucial power of the foregoing was highlighted by James Madison in Federalist No. 58, which is relevant to the duty of Congress to use the power of the purse to rein in Trump and Hegseth:
"The [People vested in the] House of Representatives [the power to] refuse, [and vested in the House] alone [the power] propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. [The People vested in Congress, alone, the power to] hold the purse [which is a most] powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, [the] representation of the people gradually [attaining the power of] reducing [ ] all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government [i.e., the executive branch which previously included judges]. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance [against the executive or judicial branch] and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure [including those governing the executive or judicial branches]."
The people who wrote and ratified our Constitution took a somewhat similar lesson from an even more directly relevant aspect of Greek history. Athens (of ancient Greece) and its own fatal war of choice offered a particularly important and powerful lesson to the Founders of this nation and the Framers (and ratifiers) of our Constitution. The same lesson is every bit as important and powerful today.
The people who wrote (and many who voted to ratify) our Constitution understood that choosing a war may be the fastest way to destroy the nation, itself, and to deprive its people of life, liberty and property without due process of law. They knew (and considered) the fact that the people of Athens, themselves, ended the Golden Age of Greece and essentially destroyed their own nation by choosing to attack Sicily. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition
In Federalist No 6 (https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493269), Alexander Hamilton or James Madison wrote about the Peloponnesian War, the deeply flawed man who led Athenians into it, his petty and fatal motivations, and the war's devastating consequences (to Athens) in terms similar to those that do or could apply to Trump today:
"The celebrated Pericles, in compliance with the resentment of a prostitute, at the expense of much of the blood and treasure of his countrymen, attacked, vanquished, and destroyed the city of the SAMNIANS. The same man, stimulated by private pique against the MEGARENSIANS, another nation of Greece, or to avoid a prosecution with which he was threatened as an accomplice of a supposed theft of the statuary Phidias, or to get rid of the accusations prepared to be brought against him for dissipating the funds of the state in the purchase of popularity, or from a combination of all these causes, was the primitive author of that famous and fatal war, distinguished in the Grecian annals by the name of the PELOPONNESIAN war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth."
For very good reason, the People in our Constitution vested the power to choose to risk or sacrifice our lives, liberty and property by invading another nation exclusively in those of our representatives whom we have the power to choose and remove directly. That's a big part of the reason our Constitution secures the right and power of the People to remove the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate every two years.
You say, "let’s be honest: Congress has been debating whether to authorize military action in Iran since June and taken no action. . . . Congress had plenty of opportunity to exercise its authorities and chose not to." That misunderstands what it means for Congress to exercise its power and responsibility under our Constitution. The decision NOT to go to war IS an exercise of a power of Congress that is expressly enumerated in our Constitution. That very power is the reason that this particular power was vested in Congress, not the president.
Our Constitution (Article I) is perfectly clear that under the current circumstances only the representatives of the people who are directly elected by the people (Representatives and Senators) have the power to risk or sacrifice our lives, our liberty or our property by choosing to involve us in attacking another nation.
The People vested in only our representatives in Congress the following powers:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Our Constitution (Article II) is perfectly clear that the president's power under the current circumstances is exclusively "executive," i.e., solely to "take care that" the exercises of legislative power, above, are "faithfully executed."
In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton highlighted that the president's powers under the current circumstances are far less than a king's or even of the governor of New York in 1787. Hamilton thus highlighted how Trump's conduct clearly violates our Constitution:
Regarding the use of the "militia," "the power of the President [is] inferior to that of either [king of Great Britain] or the governor [of New York]." "The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions."
"The President [also] is to be" nothing more than the "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States." The president's power under the current circumstances "amount[s] to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution" are vested exclusively in "the legislature."
In Article I, the People also expressly established when an executive (a governor or the president) has the power to involve the People in a war without the approval of our representatives in Congress:
A "State" may "without the Consent of Congress . . . keep Troops, or Ships of War" and "engage in War" when "actually invaded" or when a foreign force presents "such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." That's it.
Ms Allen, you talk about the clown who lives in the White House -- you even refer to him as "President Trump" -- as if he was a legitimate person with a coherent scheme. If you had two year old children who were prone to temper tantrums, and throwing food on the floor, would you legitimize them, too? (The difference, of course, is that they'll grow out of it.)
You have produced an essay which is incoherent, because it examines philosophies, or even myths, at the same time, and seemingly with the same meaning, as people who are grossly incompetent, and unable to form meaningful approaches to...anything. It seems to equate, in a sense, the sublime with the ridiculous.
Just as an example of what I mean, Ms Allen called the arrogant dunce "President Trump," complete with an upper case P. I never refer to that creature that way.
Paul, that was sort of glaring without being stated. But the presentation seemed as if to legitimize the arrogant dunce as being as worthy of discussion as the gifted leader.
Fred, for good reason, some people value or emphasize civility more than others. There's nothing at all wrong with that. We all need to speak up, but we don't all need to sound the same or say the same things.
Thanks for this excellent reflection, Danielle. The administration's approach to violence (and more importantly, Congress and many citizen's tolerance of it) is captured well by the name of the "operation," the language they use (bombing our little hearts out), and the meme's they post. I sincerely hope we will collectively learn (remember) the value of civilization and the moral commitments/obligations of such an endeavor. I also strongly agree with your diagnosis, here and elsewhere, that Congress bears great responsibility. Are you aware of any efforts to engage the "No Kings" organizers, or work separately, to have a "Save Congress" rally (or something similar, like "Do your Job, Congress" or "Renew the Republic")?
Thank you for broadening this action to its effect on the world. I strongly suspect that many of the beautiful places that you saw in Iran have likely been damaged--there was a nuclear facility at Isfahan.
However, I think that to use the term "Congress" is a misdiagnosis; the problem is actually that one of our political parties, the Republican party, has utterly collapsed. Beyond the Republican collapse, and the cause of it, is the dominance of money in politics. Does my vote mean more than someone else's dark money donation? It doesn't. The first problem, however, is to recognize that Congress no longer functions because the Republican party no longer functions.
The transformation of the Furies into the "well-minded ones" is such a great allusion. I pray we can give rise to a similar transformation in the world and especially within the U.S. --where too many of us have been driven to hate across demographic and ideological lines of difference.
I once wrote an op-ed for our local newspaper about Danielle's Partners in Democracy. The editors modified my op-ed to describe Danielle as a "Classicist Scholar". Danielle just proved the point beyond a doubt. I did not know my job, civilization's job, is to transform those Furies into Eumenides. Thank you Danielle.
May I suggest a slogan such as "No Money" or "No Kings, No Money." There's no way Congress should (or even lawfully could) appropriate more money for Trump's war. Trump violated our Constitution by unilaterally choosing to start a war without the authorization of Congress. Clearly, that's quite bad enough. Congress cannot (without also violating our Constitution) make matters worse by appropriating funds for a war that Congress did not authorize.
To encourage people to ratify our Constitution, James Madison emphasized in Federalist No. 53, “in America” we have “a Constitution established by the people” precisely to establish that it is “unalterable by the government” (our public servants). Indeed, one of the primary purposes of the Constitution was to establish “a government limited, as the federal government will be, by the authority of a paramount Constitution,” i.e., a “Constitution, paramount to the government,” as “security” for “the liberties of the people.”
The members of the House of Representatives are the representatives of the people who (from the outset) were most directly and most often subject to the approval or removal directly by the people. The second sentence of Article I emphasized that the people can replace any or even all the members of the House every two years: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” That is a crucial limitation on the power of the House to initiate laws or start wars for which we, the people, will have to pay.
The importance of the power to remove Representatives every two-years was accentuated even more by another two-year provision in Article I pertaining particularly to war: "no Appropriation of Money" to "raise and support Armies" (for war) may "be for a longer Term than two Years."
The crucial power of the foregoing was highlighted by James Madison in Federalist No. 58, which is relevant to the duty of Congress to use the power of the purse to rein in Trump and Hegseth:
"The [People vested in the] House of Representatives [the power to] refuse, [and vested in the House] alone [the power] propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. [The People vested in Congress, alone, the power to] hold the purse [which is a most] powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, [the] representation of the people gradually [attaining the power of] reducing [ ] all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government [i.e., the executive branch which previously included judges]. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance [against the executive or judicial branch] and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure [including those governing the executive or judicial branches]."
The people who wrote and ratified our Constitution took a somewhat similar lesson from an even more directly relevant aspect of Greek history. Athens (of ancient Greece) and its own fatal war of choice offered a particularly important and powerful lesson to the Founders of this nation and the Framers (and ratifiers) of our Constitution. The same lesson is every bit as important and powerful today.
The people who wrote (and many who voted to ratify) our Constitution understood that choosing a war may be the fastest way to destroy the nation, itself, and to deprive its people of life, liberty and property without due process of law. They knew (and considered) the fact that the people of Athens, themselves, ended the Golden Age of Greece and essentially destroyed their own nation by choosing to attack Sicily. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition
In Federalist No 6 (https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493269), Alexander Hamilton or James Madison wrote about the Peloponnesian War, the deeply flawed man who led Athenians into it, his petty and fatal motivations, and the war's devastating consequences (to Athens) in terms similar to those that do or could apply to Trump today:
"The celebrated Pericles, in compliance with the resentment of a prostitute, at the expense of much of the blood and treasure of his countrymen, attacked, vanquished, and destroyed the city of the SAMNIANS. The same man, stimulated by private pique against the MEGARENSIANS, another nation of Greece, or to avoid a prosecution with which he was threatened as an accomplice of a supposed theft of the statuary Phidias, or to get rid of the accusations prepared to be brought against him for dissipating the funds of the state in the purchase of popularity, or from a combination of all these causes, was the primitive author of that famous and fatal war, distinguished in the Grecian annals by the name of the PELOPONNESIAN war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth."
For very good reason, the People in our Constitution vested the power to choose to risk or sacrifice our lives, liberty and property by invading another nation exclusively in those of our representatives whom we have the power to choose and remove directly. That's a big part of the reason our Constitution secures the right and power of the People to remove the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate every two years.
You say, "let’s be honest: Congress has been debating whether to authorize military action in Iran since June and taken no action. . . . Congress had plenty of opportunity to exercise its authorities and chose not to." That misunderstands what it means for Congress to exercise its power and responsibility under our Constitution. The decision NOT to go to war IS an exercise of a power of Congress that is expressly enumerated in our Constitution. That very power is the reason that this particular power was vested in Congress, not the president.
Our Constitution (Article I) is perfectly clear that under the current circumstances only the representatives of the people who are directly elected by the people (Representatives and Senators) have the power to risk or sacrifice our lives, our liberty or our property by choosing to involve us in attacking another nation.
The People vested in only our representatives in Congress the following powers:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Our Constitution (Article II) is perfectly clear that the president's power under the current circumstances is exclusively "executive," i.e., solely to "take care that" the exercises of legislative power, above, are "faithfully executed."
In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton highlighted that the president's powers under the current circumstances are far less than a king's or even of the governor of New York in 1787. Hamilton thus highlighted how Trump's conduct clearly violates our Constitution:
Regarding the use of the "militia," "the power of the President [is] inferior to that of either [king of Great Britain] or the governor [of New York]." "The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions."
"The President [also] is to be" nothing more than the "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States." The president's power under the current circumstances "amount[s] to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution" are vested exclusively in "the legislature."
In Article I, the People also expressly established when an executive (a governor or the president) has the power to involve the People in a war without the approval of our representatives in Congress:
A "State" may "without the Consent of Congress . . . keep Troops, or Ships of War" and "engage in War" when "actually invaded" or when a foreign force presents "such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." That's it.
Ms Allen, you talk about the clown who lives in the White House -- you even refer to him as "President Trump" -- as if he was a legitimate person with a coherent scheme. If you had two year old children who were prone to temper tantrums, and throwing food on the floor, would you legitimize them, too? (The difference, of course, is that they'll grow out of it.)
You have produced an essay which is incoherent, because it examines philosophies, or even myths, at the same time, and seemingly with the same meaning, as people who are grossly incompetent, and unable to form meaningful approaches to...anything. It seems to equate, in a sense, the sublime with the ridiculous.
Fred, I disagree. The essay more coherently illustrates the difference between a gifted leader and an arrogant dunce.
Just as an example of what I mean, Ms Allen called the arrogant dunce "President Trump," complete with an upper case P. I never refer to that creature that way.
Paul, that was sort of glaring without being stated. But the presentation seemed as if to legitimize the arrogant dunce as being as worthy of discussion as the gifted leader.
Fred, for good reason, some people value or emphasize civility more than others. There's nothing at all wrong with that. We all need to speak up, but we don't all need to sound the same or say the same things.