Still, it could happen. If it does, it sounds to me like he's got the right principles for a new America.
And, of course, secession could go the other way too.
The governor of Texas sent a harsh letter to US President Barack Obama on Monday, announcing that his state would not only maintain its sanctions on Iran, but strengthen them...That sounds like another Federal lawsuit against another US State is in the offing. Ordinarily I'd say that Texas was in the wrong -- not about the advisability of the Iran Deal, about which Abbott is quite right, but about Texas' power to conduct an independent foreign policy. However, if we're entering the first phases of dissolving the Union, the testing of those boundaries is going to occur. North Carolina is testing them from a place where the Federal government is clearly overreaching its duties. Texas is testing them from a place in which the Federal government is failing its duties. So too were Arizona and the other states involved in the immigration lawsuit, demanding the Federal government enforce its laws and stop preventing them from enforcing the laws as well.
Governor Greg Abbott explained that the letter was in response to a written appeal made by Obama on April 8, requesting that Texas “review” its economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic – as was promised to Tehran in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers reached in July.
“I strongly oppose the Iran deal because it undermines the national security of the United States and its strategic allies abroad – especially our most important Middle East ally, Israel,” Abbott wrote to Obama. “Entering into an agreement with a country that consistently calls for ‘death to America,’ and repeatedly articulates antisemitic policies is short-sighted and ignores geopolitical realities.”
4 comments:
Ordinarily I'd say that Texas was in the wrong -- not about the advisability of the Iran Deal, about which Abbot is quite right, but about Texas' power to conduct an independent foreign policy.
Would you? Consider the following. Public colleges and universities across this country are engaging in economic boycotts of Israel. And somehow that is not engaging in independent foreign policy? If the Federal government sues Texas over this, I think an excellent case could then be made to sue these schools as well. After all, it's not as if the Texas State Guard would be conducting blockades of Iranian seaports. We're talking about economic sanctions, and I cannot for the life of me imagine how the Federal government could mandate economic investment in Iran.
And somehow that is not engaging in independent foreign policy?
As I meant to imply, these are not ordinary times. You raise a helpful analogy, even a counterexample.
That's very much a piece of the Obama administration's approach in general. Want to refuse to enforce Federal law? If you're a 'sanctuary city' wanting to ignore Federal immigration law, great! If you're worried about people using the wrong bathrooms, though, the DOJ will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
Want to help enforce Federal law? If you're a police department concerned about militias or motorcycle clubs, great! If you're Arizona worried about your borders being totally overrun, the DOJ will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
"Discretion" has been stretched out of shape because we have no consensus on what the law should be. Thus, Congress can't pass new laws, and it can't stop the President (whomever he may be) from enforcing or not enforcing existing laws.
Ordinarily I'd say that Texas was in the wrong -- not about the advisability of the Iran Deal, about which Abbott is quite right, but about Texas' power to conduct an independent foreign policy.
When Bernie Sanders was Mayor of Burlington Vt in the 1980s, he conducted a foreign policy of sorts aligning Burlington with the Sandinistas.
True, but we don't have any problem saying that was wrong.
Post a Comment