Latest news with #AmericanColonies
Fox News
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Protecting the Declaration of Independence in our 250th year
July Fourth marked 249 years since the 13 American colonies rejected a British monarch and embraced freedom. But as we enter the first days of our 250th year on this Earth, it feels like we're moving in the wrong direction. The Declaration of Independence was a bold (though clearly never fully realized) assertion of equality and democratic ideals. Thomas Jefferson wrote that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed" – the people of the United States would decide our own fate, not be anyone's subjects. But in the past six months all three branches of government have done serious damage to those ideals. And in just the last few weeks we've seen our government repudiating the core values of the Declaration of Independence. "For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." The animating idea behind the American Revolution and the Constitution that eventually emerged was that people were in charge through representatives. President Donald Trump has not suspended our legislatures, but he has moved to sideline them and assume the power to legislate for himself. Last week alone saw the final endgame for USAID, dismantled by the president despite congressional authorization. The Department of Education is refusing to distribute billions of congressionally appropriated dollars to state schools. And the administration sued Los Angeles for refusing to use its own resources to aid ICE's violent deportation arrests. In just the last few weeks, the Department of Justice charged a member of Congress after an oversight visit to an immigration detention facility and federal agents handcuffed Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., for asking Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem questions at a press conference. "He has obstructed the Administration of Justice... He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone..." We have no rights if the president is not bound to follow the law, which is why the founders recognized the importance of an independent judiciary. Yet President Trump has brazenly broken laws and violated the Constitution. Numerous lower court judges, including those appointed by the president himself, have excoriated DOJ lawyers for stonewalling their orders and violating the basic due process protections guaranteed by the Constitution. In some cases, the administration has appeared to openly defy the courts, like when they refused to stop deportations to a torture prison in El Salvador. More alarming, Congress and the Supreme Court majority seem eager to help. Two weeks ago, President Trump's former defense attorney and current senior DOJ official, Emil Bove, received a friendly hearing from the Senate Judiciary Committee considering his nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. This despite a whistleblower describing him openly contemplating telling courts "f--- you." "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences." The founders were aggrieved by Britain hauling people away from their communities on specious charges. Yet here we are again. Although the Supreme Court prevented the administration from sending more people to El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison under the Alien Enemies Act, they have allowed 238 Venezuelans, three-quarters with no criminal record, to languish there since March. And just two weeks ago, the court blessed the deportation of others to countries they've never set foot in without a chance to challenge that action. "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures." Freedom is hard to come by when those in power can sic the military on the people. The colonists kicked out the British for this offense, yet President Trump federalized the California National Guard without the consent of the California government, then brought in active-duty U.S. Marines, and then even more Marines after the questionable justification of civil unrest was over. "He has... sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." The singular hallmark of this administration's first six months has been the use of government power to harass the president's perceived enemies. The administration escalated its war on Harvard University. It forced the resignation of the president of the University of Virginia under threat of federal funding cuts. President Trump called for legal action against the New York Times and CNN for their reporting on the Iran bombing campaign that contradicted the president's preferred story. Secretary Noem called for an investigation into CNN for reporting on a public ICE-tracking app. And by withholding approval of a merger, the administration got Paramount to pony up $16 million to his interests to settle a thoroughly meritless lawsuit over "60 Minutes" editorial decisions. All that was in just one week. If President Trump and his allies are going to repudiate the Declaration of Independence, then we need to use the 250th year of our country to peacefully but fiercely embrace the revolutionary spirit. We would hardly be the first to take those values of equality and freedom and challenge America to do better. At Seneca Falls, the delegates calling for women's equality modeled their Declaration of Sentiments on the Declaration of Independence. Dr. Martin Luther King's most famous speech, delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, lodged its dream in the words of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." The government rang in this July 4th by testing our commitment to our nation's founding ideals of equality and government of, by and for the people. But that ideal is still worth fighting for peacefully – in the courts, at the ballot box and in the streets. Not to restore any of the flawed institutions that came before and during this administration, but to build a more just version of America that is truer to its ideals.
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How allies have helped the US gain independence, defend freedom and keep the peace – even as the US did the same for our friends
Make Canada angry. Make Mexico angry. Make the members of NATO angry. During the first few weeks of the second Trump administration, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said a lot of things about longtime allies that caused frustration and outright friction among the leaders of those countries. Trump and Vance indeed appear to disdain close alliances, favoring an America First approach to the world. A New York Times headline characterized the relationship between the U.S. and Europe now as 'A Strained Alliance.' As a former diplomat, I'm aware that how the U.S. treats its allies has been a crucial question in every presidency, since George Washington became the country's first chief executive. On his way out of that job, Washington said something that Trump, Vance and their fellow America First advocates would probably embrace. In what's known as his 'Farewell Address,' Washington warned Americans against 'entangling alliances.' Washington wanted America to treat all nations fairly, and warned against both permanent friendships and permanent enemies. The irony is that Washington would never have become president without the assistance of the not-yet-United-States' first ally, France. In 1778, after two years of brilliant diplomacy by Benjamin Franklin, the not-yet-United States and the Kingdom of France signed a treaty of alliance as the American Colonies struggled to win their war for independence from Britain. France sent soldiers, money and ships to the American revolutionaries. Within three years, after a major intervention by the French fleet, the battle of Yorktown in 1781 effectively ended the war and America was independent. American political leaders largely heeded Washington's warning against alliances throughout the 1800s. The Atlantic Ocean shielded the young nation from Europe's problems and many conflicts, and America's closest neighbors had smaller populations and less military might. Aside from the War of 1812, in which the U.S. fought the British, America largely found itself protected from the outside world's problems. That began to change when Europe descended into the brutal trench warfare of World War I. Initially, American politicians avoided becoming involved. What would today be called an isolationist movement was strong, and its supporters felt that the war in Europe was being waged for the benefit of big business. But it was hard for the maintain neutrality. German submarines sank ships crossing the Atlantic carrying American passengers. The economies of some of America's biggest trading partners were in shreds; the democracies of Britain, France and other European countries were at risk. President Woodrow Wilson led the United States into the war in 1917 as an ally of the Western European nations. When he asked Congress for a declaration of war, Wilson touted the value of like-minded allies, saying, 'A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations.' The war was over within 16 months. Immediately after the war, the Allies – led by the U.S., France and Britain – stayed together to craft the peace agreements, feed the war-ravaged parts of Europe and intervene in Russia after the Communist Revolution there. Prosperity came along with the peace, helping the U.S. quickly develop into a global economic power. However, within a few years, American politicians returned to traditional isolationism in political and military matters and continued this attitude well into the 1930s. The worldwide Great Depression that began in 1929 was blamed on vulnerabilities in the global economy, and there was a strong sentiment among Americans that the U.S. should fix its internal problems rather than assist Europe with its problems. As both Hitler and the Japanese Empire began to attack their neighbors in the late 1930s, it became clear to President Franklin Roosevelt and other American military and political leaders that the U.S. would get caught up in World War II. If nothing else, airplanes had erased America's ability to hide behind the Atlantic Ocean. Though public opinion was divided, the U.S. began sending arms and other assistance to Britain and quietly began military planning with London. This was despite the fact that the U.S. was formally neutral, as the Roosevelt administration was pushing the limits of what a neutral nation can do for friendly nations without becoming a warring party. In January of 1941, Roosevelt gave his annual State of the Union speech to Congress. He appeared to prepare the country for possible intervention – both on behalf of allies abroad and for the preservation of American democracy: 'The future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders. Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, and Asia, and Africa and Australasia will be dominated by conquerors. In times like these it is immature – and incidentally, untrue – for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.' When the Japanese attacked Hawaii in 1941 and Hitler declared war on the United States, America quickly entered World War II in an alliance with Britain, the Free French and others. Throughout the war, the Allies worked as a team on matters large and small. They defeated Germany in three and half years and Japan in less than four. As World War II ended, the wartime alliance produced two longer-term partnerships built on the understanding that working together had produced a powerful and effective counter to fascism. The first of these alliances is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. The original members were the U.S., Canada, Britain, France and others of the wartime Allies. There are now 32 members, including Poland, Hungary and Turkey. The aims of NATO were to keep the peace in Europe and contain the growing Communist threat from the Soviet Union. NATO's supporters feel that, given that the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and in the Ukraine today are the only major conflicts in Europe in 80 years, the alliance has met its goals well. And NATO troops went to Afghanistan along with the U.S. military after 9/11. The other institution created by the wartime Allies is the United Nations. The U.N. is many things – a humanitarian aid organization, a forum for countries to raise their issues and a source of international law. However, it is also an alliance. The U.N. Security Council on several occasions authorized the use of force by members, such as in the first Gulf War against Iraq. And it has the power to send peacekeeping troops to conflict areas under the U.N. flag. Other U.S. allies with treaties or designations by Congress include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel, three South American countries and six in the Middle East. In addition to these formal alliances, many of the same countries created institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization of American States and the European Union. The U.S. belongs to all of these except the European Union. During my 35-year diplomatic career, I worked with all of these institutions, particularly in efforts to stabilize Africa. They keep the peace and support development efforts with loans and grants. Admirers of this postwar liberal international order point to the limited number of major armed conflicts during the past 80 years, the globalized economy and international cooperation on important matters such as disease control and fighting terrorism. Detractors point to this system's inability to stop some very deadly conflicts, such as Vietnam or Ukraine, and the large populations that haven't done well under globalization as evidence of its flaws. The world would look dramatically different without the Allies' victories in the two World Wars, the stable worldwide economic system and NATO's and the U.N.'s keeping the world relatively peaceful. But the value of allies to Americans, even when they benefit from alliances, appears to have shifted between George Washington's attitude – avoid them – and that of Franklin D. Roosevelt – go all in … eventually. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Donald Heflin, Tufts University Read more: Russia's shrinking world: The war in Ukraine and Moscow's global reach On Ukraine, candidate Trump touts his role as dealmaker while Harris sticks with unwavering support JD Vance's selection as Trump's running mate marks the end of Republican conservatism Donald Heflin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
