Democratizing the US Constitution: An Idea Worth Considering

The grandees of the Republican Party are on the ropes. Donald Trump has them by the balls, but, even without Trump, they would be in what Bush the Father would call deep “do-do.”

Any Republican candidate for President whom two-thirds of the electorate could abide would be anathema to the one-third that Republicans have recruited into their rank and file. Mitt Romney was the final straw.

The establishment’s situation is so pitiful that even Chris Christie is starting to look good to them. If his candidacy survives into the Spring, late night TV comedians will rejoice; others, not so much.

Ted Cruz remains beyond the pale, but seeing an opening, he might try to find a way to insinuate himself into the establishment’s favor. They would have to forgive him for challenging their authority in the past, and he would have to make himself less obnoxious in the future.

This would be hard for them both: Republican grandees expect respect, and Cruz’s mean-spirited arrogance is ingrained. There is nothing he could do that would keep the gentlefolk he would have to brownnose from abhorring him in any case; though it might not matter because, in Republican circles, greed conquers all. But his current supporters would be less forgiving. Were Cruz to try to placate the pillars of the Party, his inauthenticity would become so transparent that he would lose the Republican base. Their one redeeming virtue is that they despise phonies.

And so, with Cruz a tough sell, and with the fall of the House of Bush a done deal, the smart money, having nowhere else to go, seems to have settled on Marco Rubio, the most risible pipsqueak in the bunch. Remember Scott Walker, the good-for-nothing the grandees doted on before they cut him loose? Rubio makes Walker look good.

To help his case, Rubio has taken to advocating Constitutional amendments that would mandate timeworn libertarian nostrums – a balanced federal budget, for example, and term limits for elected officials and judges.

To fast track these changes, he has called for a new Constitutional convention, a “Convention of States.” So far, though, this has not been a central issue in his campaign. Maybe he is not serious; maybe he has not thought the idea through.

The one sure thing is that he didn’t think of it all by himself. The idea has been kicked around for years on rightwing talk radio shows. Its most ardent proponent on Capitol Hill lately has been an Oklahoma Senator who makes the buffoons running for President on the Republican side seem almost plausible, Tom Coburn.

Then, just a few days ago, Greg Abbott, successor to Rick Perry and George W. Bush in the Texas Governor’s office, took up the call as well. With Abbott on board and Rubio breathing down his neck, can Cruz be far behind?

Before long, therefore, the call for a Convention of States could become an “issue” in the Republican primaries, and maybe in the November election as well.

Abbott wants Amendments that would prohibit “unelected bureaucrats” from creating federal laws or preempting state laws; and that would allow a two-thirds majority of the States, to override U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

He also wants Amendments that would require a seven-Justice super-majority vote before Supreme Court decisions would invalidate democratically enacted laws.

And he wants Amendments that would prohibit the federal government from exercising powers not expressly delegated to it by the Constitution; and that would give state officials the power to sue federal officials who “overstep their bounds” in federal courts.

Last but not least, he wants an Amendment that would allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override federal laws and regulations.

Abbott’s proposals are tailored to the interests of his backers in what is euphemistically called “the business community.” He probably wouldn’t oppose amendments requiring budget balancing, term limits, and other causes dear to the hearts of the GOP’s formerly useful idiots, but his heart belongs to the semi-enlightened capitalists who call the shots in Austin and Washington DC.

This could change, however, if Rubio’s star keeps rising and if Cruz signs on too. There are more than enough possible amendments around to satisfy both the predator class and the numbskulls who do them service.

Indeed, if anything remains of the Republican Party after Trump, if it survives in more than a skeletal form, changing the Constitution may become the next big Republican cause.

The Constitution changers are not likely to get their way; but, as has happened with other Republican initiatives, we can expect their efforts to drag the center of gravity in American politics even farther to the right – especially if America’s other semi-established, pro-business Party is led by Hillary Clinton.

***

We Americans get weird over our Constitution.

Descendants of America’s first European settlers no longer predominate in the upper echelons of the federal judiciary or in the academic and media institutions that shape public opinion on legal affairs; this has been the case for many years.

Nevertheless, we think of the Constitution in much the way that our Pilgrim Fathers – we still call them that and think of them as ours – regarded Holy Writ, as a repository of Truth and infallible guide to life.

But sacred texts are ambiguous and vague, and sometimes even contradictory; they must be interpreted to be understood. The only way that “fundamentalists” can think that they are following the Bible’s teachings literally is by deceiving themselves.

9976953264_ce7d61b861_b_White-House-in-WashingtonThis is even clearer with the Constitution; a text that is, at key points, so deliberately vague that its authors established (judicial) institutions to interpret what its words imply.

Rightwing jurisprudes who uphold doctrines that mimic Protestant notions of Biblical inerrancy understand this too. Even they realize that, at some level, lawmakers and judges pick and choose, and that what gets picked and chosen is often arbitrary.

America’s gun laws can hardly be justified on their merits; this is plain as can be. Nevertheless, there are large swathes of the American public that defend them by appeal to the Second Amendment. For them, the Second Amendment might as well be God’s Eleventh Commandment.

Even so, it takes a mind-boggling hermeneutical leap to get from “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” to an infrangible right to own and flaunt all the lethal weaponry a gun nut can afford.

And it takes gall to promote that policy on Constitutional grounds, while not minding in the least that, in clear and unequivocal violation of Constitutional provisions, the United States makes war on other countries, and on “terrorists,” whenever its President takes a notion, without obtaining formal declarations of war from Congress, and sometimes without any semblance of Congressional assent at all. One point on which the authors of the U.S. Constitution were emphatic is that only Congress can commit the country to war.

The inconsistency is remarkable, but not surprising in view of the theological origins of the regnant frame of mind. Godly folk who consider the Bible the final word on nearly everything have always been quick to justify and condemn whatever suits them, regardless what the Good Book says.

Neither is it surprising that Coburn, Rubio and Abbott want to change the Constitution by amending it, rather than by starting over from scratch. We Americans are as disinclined to abandon our Constitution as those Pilgrim Fathers were to give up the King James Bible.

The conventional wisdom in liberal and centrist circles has long been: be wary of efforts to tamper with the Constitution, even around its margins, because, once the Right gets involved, as it inevitably will, it will seize opportunities to put basic rights and liberties in jeopardy.

That argument made more sense a decade and a half ago – before the Bush and Obama administrations put basic rights and liberties in jeopardy anyway, without changing anything in the Constitution at all.

In the post-9/11 world, the old concerns no longer count as much as they did, because the courts and the public generally, having been scared to death by War on Terror propaganda, are more tolerant than they used to be of government intrusions into privacy rights and of other restrictions on individuals’ liberties.

And so, it must be said that notwithstanding the fact that Coburn, Rubio and Abbott don’t mean well, the idea that they have been promoting might just have merit; that changing the Constitution could actually do some good. This possibility is worth considering.

***

It must be said too that some of Abbott’s ideas aren’t all that bad. Those that empower the legislative branch at the judiciary’s expense could enhance (small-d) democracy – not in the world as it now is, but in easily imaginable circumstances.

To be sure, his gestures towards democratization are disingenuous; were Rubio’s proposals more specific, his would be too. What those two want is to serve and protect their billionaire and millionaire patrons and, if possible too, to pander to the Republican base. They could care less about (small-d) democracy.

But why not turn the tables on those Constitution changers? The Constitution genuinely does impede democratization; it was drawn up in part for that purpose. It would not be a bad idea at all for (small-d) democrats to put democratizing it high on the agenda.

To some extent, this is already happening – with efforts to overturn the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” ruling. That travesty, built on Supreme Court rulings going back to the mid-seventies, licenses virtually unbridled political corruption in the guise of defending First Amendment “free speech” rights.

Seeking to overturn the Court’s decision is well and good, though, not surprisingly, the activists promoting that cause — the people behind the “End Citizens United” PAC, for example — seem only a tad less disingenuous than Rubio and Abbott. Their concern, quite obviously, is getting (big-D) Democrats elected.

But Constitution changing can be pursued in good faith because there is an ideal that nearly everyone endorses or, at least, does not, and cannot, reasonably oppose: political equality, equality of citizenship.

Can anyone truly believe that citizens are equal as citizens when there is merely formal equality in elections – each voter having one and only one vote? It would not be hard to convince nearly everybody that for political equality to be real, everyone who so chooses must be able in principle to affect outcomes equally.

The United States is, of course, a union of States, of partially sovereign mini-countries. This made sense in view of the geographic, political, and economic exigencies in effect at the time of the country’s founding. But it is no less irrational on that account.

States include rural, suburban and urban areas that have little in common. Also, many metropolitan areas spill over into two, three or more state jurisdictions. Insofar as the idea is to govern efficiently, this makes no sense.

Ancien régime France was also a hodgepodge of administrative units. The French Revolution ended that, introducing an order that could be efficiently administered from the center.

Nothing that radical seems feasible in the United States today – not just because there is no political constituency pushing for it, but also because the American ancien régime is, by now, so deeply entrenched that the efficiency benefits of moving to more rational arrangements would be outweighed by the costs of getting from here to there.

Moreover, administrative inefficiencies are less of a problem than one might think because, over the years, ways have evolved that mitigate some of the inevitable coordination problems that arise when integral geographical entities spill across State lines. There is therefore little reason to change the status quo on efficiency grounds.

But there are ample (small-d) democratic reasons for restructuring the ways that the federal government’s legislative branch depends upon the division of the country into States; and therefore good reasons to think about amending the Constitution as a remedy.

The Senate is a glaring problem: each state, regardless of size, has two Senators; no matter that more than 37 million Americans live in California and barely half a million live in Wyoming.

Even Californians are well represented, however, compared to residents of Washington DC, the home of “taxation without representation.” More people live in the District, by the way, than in Wyoming. Montana, North and South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware and Vermont are not much bigger than Washington either. How is that for equality of political influence?

The Senate is as it is because, at the time of the country’s founding, it was politically necessary to accord each state equal representation in the upper house of a bicameral legislature. Had the founders not negotiated that arrangement, there would have been no federal government at all.

The situation was even worse than it now is, from a (small-d) democratic point of view, before 1913, when the Seventeenth Amendment, requiring that Senators be elected by popular vote, came into effect. Until then, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, many of which were effectively controlled by local oligarchs.

There would be little point trying to change or limit the powers of the Senate. But there would be enormous benefit were Senators elected, not two per state, but, say, two per functionally integral and more or less equally sized Senatorial districts. Those districts could be resized periodically as demographic conditions change.

This way too citizens of Washington DC could have the same level of representation as other Americans.

Senatorial districts could then be broken up into Congressional districts according to mandated impartial principles, making gerrymandering impossible. Thanks to the gerrymandering of Congressional districts by State officials, the House of Representatives, these days, is arguably an even less (small-d) democratic institution than the intentionally undemocratic Senate.

In conjunction with Constitutional amendments that would confer a non-defeasible right to vote upon all citizens who have reached the age of majority, and that would prohibit governments from suppressing voter turnout or in any other way discouraging the exercise of the franchise, these changes could also lead to the demise of America’s stultifying duopoly party system.

Were ballot access rules at the federal, state and local levels eased by Constitutional mandates, it would become reasonable too to push for proportional representation within Congressional districts, so that voters would have a better chance than they now do of voting for what they want, and getting some semblance of it elected into office.

It goes without saying too that, for the sake of (small-d) democracy, Presidents should be selected by popular vote, and the Electoral College should be abolished.

Finally, some form of instant runoff voting — where voters vote not only for their favored candidate or party, but also for their second choice — could be mandated, when necessary, for elections, such as those for the presidency and the Senate, in which there can be only one winner.

Needless to say, delegates to the Convention of States that Rubio and Abbott have in mind would not be interested in fast-tracking Constitutional amendments intended to democratize the federal government – unless, of course, an enraged citizenry, determined to make political equality substantively real, made them an offer they could not refuse.

It is also plain that none of these measures, or others that might be added on, are panaceas. Because the exigencies of capitalist development constrain what states in capitalist societies can do, there is a limit to how (small-d) democratic they can become.

This is how it is even in countries that insulate the political sphere from direct intrusions by economic elites — through public funding of elections and in other ways. The problem goes far beyond Citizens United.

But the limit is movable, and the kinds of measures that a Constitutional Convention called by (small-d) democrats might promote could be useful for moving that limit forward. A Rubio-Abbott Convention of States would, of course, move it back.

But the idea they are floating is worth thinking about, and maybe appropriating. It is not out of the question that, in better hands than theirs, some good could come of it.


Originally published in August 2016.

About the author: Andrew Levine is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy.His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What’s Wrong With the Opium of the People. He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

Read our Disclaimer/Legal Statement!

Origins of images: Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Flickr, Google, Imageinjection & Pinterest.

Donate to Support Us

We would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We accept no advertising and rely only on you, our readers, to keep us digging the truth on history, global politics and international relations.

 

7177175713_a648aaf977_b_USA-flag
READ MORE!
NATO’s Fascist Wedge in Ukraine
The latest advert for Ukraine’s armed forces depicts chiselled military hunks over a caption: “THEY WILL PROTECT YOUR INVESTMENTS — Ukrainian Army: protecting the borders of civilisation.” In reality, Russia was Ukraine’s largest single investor in the first six months of 2018, comprising 34.6 per cent of total foreign direct investment. Advertising slogans for Ukraine’s army targeted at English-speaking investors are a sign of increasing desperation within ruling circles. Recent public reports of the mafia running Odessa, Ukraine’s largest port, were linked via the Paradise Papers in a BBC investigation to money laundering in London’s property market by Alexander “The Don” Angert and ...
READ MORE
“Operation Unthinkable” (1945) and US-NATO’s Threats to Wage War on Russia
Five days before the celebration of the 71th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s capitulation to the Soviet and allied troops in the WWII, the new NATO Supreme Commander in Europe Curtis Scaparrotti announced that he came to beat the drums of war again. Ignoring the historic facts and legitimate Russian interests in its around, in his first speech after assuming office he condemned alleged “Russian aggressive behavior that challenges international norms” and called the bloc members to “fight tonight if deterrence fails.” This commonplace declaration fairly correlates with the military and media strategy the Western ruling class adopted decades ago. Even putting aside the ...
READ MORE
The US and China Can Avoid a Collision Course – If the US Gives Up its Empire
The problem is America’s global hegemony comes with insistence on maintaining military and economic dominance right in China’s backyard. To avoid a violent militaristic clash with China, or another cold war rivalry, the United States should pursue a simple solution: give up its empire. Americans fear that China’s rapid economic growth will slowly translate into a more expansive and assertive foreign policy that will inevitably result in a war with the US. Harvard Professor Graham Allison has found: “in 12 of 16 cases in the past 500 years when a rising power challenged a ruling power, the outcome was war.” Chicago University scholar John ...
READ MORE
The Korean War and Crimes against Humanity
“ON JANUARY 3 [1951] AT 10:30 AM, AN ARMADE OF 82 FLYING FORTRESSES LOOSED THEIR DEATH-DEALING LOAD ON THE CITY OF PYONGYANG. …  “THE NUMBER OF INHABITANTS OF PYONGYANG KILLED BY BOMB SPLINTERS, BURNT ALIVE AND SUFFOCATED BY SMOKE IS INCALCULABLE, SINCE NO COMPUTATION IS POSSIBLE. SOME FIFTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS REMAIN IN THE CITY, WHICH BEFORE THE WAR HAD A POPULATION OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND.” [UN Repository] With tension ever mounting in the Korean peninsular, all the higher every year with US bombers conducting annual drills over South Korea within direct strike range of North Korea, it is notable and deeply regrettable the West has lost all ...
READ MORE
The Myth of Hiroshima
With rare exception, the question of whether the atomic bombs were necessary to end World War Two is debated only deep within the safety of academic circles. Could a land invasion have been otherwise avoided? Would more diplomacy have achieved the same ends without the destruction of two cities? Could an atomic test on a deserted island have convinced the Japanese? Was the surrender instead driven primarily by the entry of the Soviets into the Pacific War, which, by historical accident, took place two days after Hiroshima—and the day before Nagasaki was immolated? But it is not only the history of the ...
READ MORE
Time is Running Out For Pax Americana’s Apologists
The paradox of the current global crisis is that for the last five years, all relatively responsible and independent nations have made tremendous efforts to save the United States from the financial, economic, military, and political disaster that looms ahead. And this is all despite Washington’s equally systematic moves to destabilize the world order, rightly known as the Pax Americana (“American peace”). Since policy is not a zero-sum game, i.e., one participant’s loss does not necessarily entail a gain for another, this paradox has a logical explanation. A crisis erupts within any system when there is a discrepancy between its internal ...
READ MORE
Kosovo and Systematic Persecution by KLA
The former Yugoslavia was engulfed by many conflicts and ethnic and religious differences tore away at the very fabric of this nation. Like all wars, atrocities took place on all sides but the mass media in general focused on Serbian atrocities, while neglecting brutal crimes committed against the Serbian community. This certainly applies to the glossing over of war crimes done by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). However, more and more evidence is coming to light about brutal KLA death camps and killing people for organs. Therefore, will former KLA members be charged with war crimes and will the “real truth” ...
READ MORE
What is a Politics?
Read our Disclaimer/Legal Statement! Donate to Support Us We would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We accept no advertising and rely only on you, our readers, to keep us digging the truth on history, global politics and international relations.
READ MORE
Americans are no Different than Germans were (and are)
Daniel Goldhagen blamed the Holocaust on «the Germans» (by which he meant the German people), and said that they perpetrated the Holocaust because they positively enjoyed murdering «the Jews». But, as has long been well understood by historians (except when they fail to point to it as being a disproof of Goldhagen’s bigoted and indefensible anti-German thesis), Hitler had to work long and hard in order to bring about a consensus, first amongst his own leadership group, and then in the population as a whole, favoring the extermination-option. Hitler, Der Fuehrer, «The Leader», clearly was the catalyst turning the chemical ...
READ MORE
A Croatian Role in the Destruction of Yugoslavia in the 1990s (II)
Part I The basic cornerstones of the Croat ultraright nationalistic ideology From the point of the ideology of the extreme Croat nationalism, the cardinal goal of ultraright nationalistic parties, groups, ideologists and politicians was to create for the first time after 1102 an independent, as much as a Greater and finally “Serben-frei” Croatia. In the 1990s it was an exactly ultraright nationalistic ideology that provided the main background for creation of a new normative order and values in the HDZ’s Croatia. This ideology had five cardinal cornerstones which gave the framework for building a new institutional order, political values and means to ...
READ MORE
Crimea: Was it Seized by Russia, or did Russia Block its Seizure by the U.S.?
Both before and after Crimea left Ukraine and joined Russia in a public referendum on 16 March 2014, the Gallup Organization polled Crimeans on behalf of the U.S. Government, and found them to be extremely pro-Russian and anti-American, and also anti-Ukrainian. (Neither poll was subsequently publicized, because the results of each were the opposite of what the sponsor had wished.) Both polls were done on behalf of the U.S. Government, in order to find Crimeans’ attitudes toward the United States and toward Russia, and also toward Ukraine, not only before but also after the planned U.S. coup in Ukraine, which occurred ...
READ MORE
Install “Madam President”
“Reform always provokes rage on the part of those who profit by the old order.”  Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.,  The Crisis of the Old Order Who are the anti-Trump protesters besmirching the name of progressives by pretending to be progresives and by refusing to accept the outcome of the presidential election?  They look like, and are acting worse than, the “white trash” that they are denouncing. I think I know who they are. They are thugs for hire and are paid by the Oligarchy to delegitimize Trump’s presidency in the way that Washington and the German Marshall Fund paid students in Kiev to ...
READ MORE
“Democracy is Pure Fantasy”: Trump vs. Clinton
It’s all over but the postmortems. Trump and Clinton are their parties’ presumptive nominees. Choice for voters in November amounts to death by hanging or firing squad. Democracy is pure fantasy. None whatever exists. Trump was the last GOP aspirant left standing after all others dropped out, an unlikely choice, a surprise winner, prevailing despite party bosses opposing him. Democrat power brokers chose Clinton before primary/caucus season began. The race was over before it started. Voters in November get to choose between a dirty business as usual billionaire racist, demagogue and a recklessly dangerous neocon racketeer, war criminal, Wall Street tool she ...
READ MORE
Operation Barbarossa: The 75th Anniversary of the Nazi Invasion of the Soviet Union
Seventy-five years ago Adolf Hitler launched the biggest and most destructive military campaign in history when three million German and allied troops invaded the Soviet Union along a 1,000-mile front. Operation Barbarossa – the codename for the German invasion of Russia - was no ordinary military campaign: it was an ideological and racist war, a war of destruction and extermination that aimed to kill Jews, enslave the Slavic peoples and destroy communism. The result was a war in which 25 million Soviet citizens died, including a million Jews, executed by the SS in 1941-1942 – an action which became the template ...
READ MORE
George Soros’s False Flag Factories
Global hedge fund tycoon and political provocateur George Soros is leading a war of symbols, namely flags and banners either resurrected or conjured up by his myriad non-profit groups, to stir religious, racial, and ethnic tensions the world over. From the Serbian OTPOR! movement and its clenched-fist symbol adopted by protests groups around the world to the menacing black and white flag of the Islamic State, which first appeared during the Soros-backed «Arab Spring» rebellions, Soros’s «false flag» factories have been running at break-neck production speeds. Soros and his acolytes saw the importance of symbology in the writings of Gene Sharp ...
READ MORE
Overthrowing Other People’s Governments: The Master List
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government) China 1949 to early 1960s Albania 1949-53 East Germany 1950s Iran 1953 * Guatemala 1954 * Costa Rica mid-1950s Syria 1956-7 Egypt 1957 Indonesia 1957-8 British Guiana 1953-64 * Iraq 1963 * North Vietnam 1945-73 Cambodia 1955-70 * Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 * Ecuador 1960-63 * Congo 1960 * France 1965 Brazil 1962-64 * Dominican Republic 1963 * Cuba 1959 to present Bolivia 1964 * Indonesia 1965 * Ghana 1966 * Chile 1964-73 * ...
READ MORE
Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes Speech
Origins of images: Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Flickr, Google, Imageinjection & Pinterest. Read our Disclaimer/Legal Statement! Donate to Support Us We would like to ask you to consider a small donation to help our team keep working. We accept no advertising and rely only on you, our readers, to keep us digging the truth on history, global politics and international relations.
READ MORE
A Collection of Thoughts about American Foreign Policy
Louis XVI needed a revolution, Napoleon needed two historic military defeats, the Spanish Empire in the New World needed multiple revolutions, the Russian Czar needed a communist revolution, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires needed World War I, Nazi Germany needed World War II, Imperial Japan needed two atomic bombs, the Portuguese Empire in Africa needed a military coup at home, the Soviet Empire needed Mikhail Gorbachev … What will the American Empire need? I don’t believe anyone will consciously launch World War III. The situation now is more like the eve of World War I, when great powers were armed and ...
READ MORE
The Media Is Lying to You on Macedonia. US Is Backing an Illegal Coup D’état
Media narrative: Hateful protestors stormed the Macedonian parliament after an ethnic Albanian Talat Xhaferi was elected speaker for the first time. Truth: Protestors stormed the parliament because Xhaferi was declared speaker in an illegal, unconstitutional manner as part of an ongoing coup d'état. It had nothing whatsoever to do with his ethnicity. Even though Xhaferi was "elected" in an irregular manner, the US and EU have already stated they recognize his appointment. This now paves the way for ethnic Albanian parties and the smaller of two main Macedonian parties (Social Democrats) to proclaim a government without the constitutionally required go-ahead from the President of the Republic. The latter has defied ...
READ MORE
International Law? The Americans don’t give a Damn
The United States of America has sunk to a new low in diplomacy and civilized relations between nation states with its demand that Russia close its consular missions in San Francisco, Washington and New York, quickly followed by its order that the consular staff leave the premises while the FBI conducted a search of the premises and staffers personal apartments. To order the closure of a mission, or to order the withdrawal of a member of diplomatic staff, is within its right but a search of consular property is not. It is a flagrant violation of the Vienna Convention on ...
READ MORE
NATO’s Fascist Wedge in Ukraine
“Operation Unthinkable” (1945) and US-NATO’s Threats to Wage War on Russia
The US and China Can Avoid a Collision Course – If the US Gives Up its Empire
The Korean War and Crimes against Humanity
The Myth of Hiroshima
Time is Running Out For Pax Americana’s Apologists
Kosovo and Systematic Persecution by KLA
What is a Politics?
Americans are no Different than Germans were (and are)
A Croatian Role in the Destruction of Yugoslavia in the 1990s (II)
Crimea: Was it Seized by Russia, or did Russia Block its Seizure by the U.S.?
Install “Madam President”
“Democracy is Pure Fantasy”: Trump vs. Clinton
Operation Barbarossa: The 75th Anniversary of the Nazi Invasion of the Soviet Union
George Soros’s False Flag Factories
Overthrowing Other People’s Governments: The Master List
Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes Speech
A Collection of Thoughts about American Foreign Policy
The Media Is Lying to You on Macedonia. US Is Backing an Illegal Coup D’état
International Law? The Americans don’t give a Damn
Policraticus

Written by Policraticus

SHORT LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The website’s owner & editor-in-chief has no official position on any issue published at this website. The views of the authors presented at this website do not necessarily coincide with the opinion of the owner & editor-in-chief of the website. The contents of all material (articles, books, photos, videos…) are of sole responsibility of the authors. The owner & editor-in-chief of this website is not morally, scientifically or legally responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in the contents of all material found on this website. The owner & editor-in-chief of this website is not responsible for the content of external internet sites. No advertising, government or corporate funding for the functioning of this website. The owner & editor-in-chief and authors are not morally, scientifically or legally responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in the text and material found on the website www.global-politics.eu

Website: http://www.global-politics.eu