12493.

Former student “M” writes:

My dad is Palestinian and my mom is Syrian and the more I learn about US foreign policy, the more upset and disillusioned I become with the government. It’s strange to think that I exist because of American imperialism and that I am a part of the system that had driven my parents away from their homelands. It makes me feel like, at any moment, my own government might do me harm and it would be okay because they’d label me as a threat to society, especially with the current administration.

I’d like to hear your thoughts as to whether we can change how we conduct foreign policy and why we choose to continue these policies. I guess I wish I could listen to one of your lectures again. You should do YouTube.

First, thank you for your kind words, and I apologize for taking so long to answer. I’ve spent the last two months consulting with my advisors, editors, sponsors, and lawyers, and we think we have a draft response. Here goes:

It has been a while. Hopefully, you remember me.

I do. 

I was wondering if you had written anything about the Israel-Palestine conflict in one of your blogs.

Not really. A quick search for “Palestine” yields two results, both for passing references.

We covered a lot of topics during my time in your class, but I don’t remember whether we covered it in-depth or not. It definitely would have been one of the classes I would be awake for haha.

We did not, and suuure you would have been awake. Just like the grads who insist they should have been taught “valuable life skills” would have definitely paid attention to those lessons.

My dad is Palestinian and my mom is Syrian and the more I learn about US foreign policy, the more upset and disillusioned I become with the government. It’s strange to think that I exist because of American imperialism and that I am a part of the system that had driven my parents away from their homelands.

I don’t know all the ins and outs of your family history, but I would neither blame nor credit American imperialism for your existence. Allow that possibility to remain “strange to think about,” same as all the rest of history that led up to your existence. You’ll drive yourself nuts otherwise. You exist because two people– you see, when a man and a woman– ask your parents.

Also, disillusionment with the government is a perfectly normal and healthy response to reality.

It makes me feel like, at any moment, my own government might do me harm and it would be okay because they’d label me as a threat to society, especially with the current administration.

I won’t say you have absolutely no reason to believe this, but you have way less reason to believe this than you think.

If you aren’t trespassing, illegally occupying buildings, breaking windows, burning things, throwing punches, etc., and you’re not planning to do so, and you’re not inciting others to do so, then your government probably won’t come after you.

If you express an opinion without doing anything else illegal, then your government probably won’t come after you.

Those “probablies” aren’t going to make anyone feel better, but 99.99% isn’t 100%, so I can’t say “definitely.”

The legions of lawyers and constitutional scholars who read this blog religiously are salivating at my naivete– which is fair. After all, how many times in American history were people arrested for literal mere non-violent expression?

And yet, this isn’t 1968. Or 1917. Or 1890. Or… you get the idea.

Expression is generally more protected today than before. So is demographic identity, for that matter. If it doesn’t feel that way, then read more history. It might not make you feel better about now, but it’ll make you feel worse about way back when, and hopefully see the progress.

Or, again, maybe I’m naive.

I’d like to hear your thoughts as to whether we can change how we conduct foreign policy and why we choose to continue these policies.

We can change how we conduct foreign policy, we do it all the time, and we do it every 4 to 8 years. If we didn’t, then candidates for office would almost never talk about foreign policy during campaigns, and foreign individuals, companies, and governments wouldn’t try to influence our elections one way or another.

How can we change them? Vote. Run for office. Speak. Write. March. I’m not making suggestions or hoping to inspire any actual action here, I’m just listing what I think are obvious answers. Just remember this, even if you ignore the rest of my blather:

A lot of your political opponents want you to feel powerless so you’ll give up hope and quit.

But a lot of your political comrades also want you to feel powerless so you’ll become desperate and easier to manipulate.

I guess I wish I could listen to one of your lectures again.

Thanks! I appreciate the sentiment.

You should do YouTube.

That sounds like work, so… no.

Happy 115th!

Today would have been my grandmother’s 115th birthday, so it’s time for this year’s edition of her digital birthday card. Here she is, waving from the back of a train in 1933:

Happy birthday!

Happy Quasquicentennial!

Today would have been Grampa’s 125th birthday, so here’s this year’s edition of the digital birthday card. Here he is with his bride:

I don’t know for sure where this was taken, but I’m going to guess it’s their back yard in Elmhurst. Based on the appearances of my aunts in other photographs from this set, I’m pretty certain this was the mid-to-late 1940s. Just a bit after the war. I’ll get corrected soon enough if I’m off.

I’m a few years older now than Grampa was in this photo, and that-plus-ten-years older than Gram. And yet I feel I could live into the next century, as planned, and never be as grown up as them, or anyone else from those times.

Happy birthday!

“The shot heard round the world.”

Today marks the 250th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. In simple tribute, here is Ralph Waldo Emerson’s simple tribute, “Concord Hymn”:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,

   Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,

Here once the embattled farmers stood

   And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;

   Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;

And Time the ruined bridge has swept

   Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,

   We set today a votive stone;

That memory may their deed redeem,

   When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare

   To die, and leave their children free,

Bid Time and Nature gently spare

   The shaft we raise to them and thee.

(I probably should have thought to post Longfellow’s poem about Paul Revere’s ride yesterday, but such is life.)

Delegata potestas non potest delegari.

Figure I’d better start writing about the tariffs so that I have a record and a memory of what I thought at the time.

Amidst all the commentary, analysis, lunacy, panic, bravado, false bravado, false panic, and so on regarding these tariffs, there’s a particular aspect I haven’t seen brought up all that often yet, though I expect to notice more about it in the next few days. That aspect is constitutionality. Whether Trump’s tariffs are good or bad, or really bad, or really… really bad, I’m pretty certain they’re not constitutional.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress. Clause 1 of this section gives Congress the power “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Clause 3 of this section gives Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” In short, Congress has the tariff power.

I am neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, but hear me out anyways because I’m right. You see that Latin phrase up top? It means that you can’t delegate a power that’s been delegated to you. If the Constitution gives a branch a power, that branch can’t give that power away.

Trump’s emergency tariffs might currently be “legal” due to some stupid law that Congress passed decades ago, but I say they’re unconstitutional because that stupid law delegates a delegated power. That’s a no-no, and SCOTUS is welcome to cite me.

If you want a tariff, or any kind of federal tax, it has to be passed by the House first, and then it has to be passed by the Senate, and then it has to be signed by the President. And despite what supporters of a certain national health care act and a certain current Chief Justice think, yes, the Constitution specifies the order.

Some folks might point out that nondelegation isn’t literally written into the Constitution, and that Congress can obviously delegate certain administrative responsibilities to the executive branch. After all, what does an executive administration do, if not administrate? I’d respond that my take (“you can’t delegate powers that Article I specifically and explicitly gives to Congress”) is less of a constitutional stretch than theirs (“the President can announce an emergency and enact whatever tariffs he wants”).

I think– I hope– the current Supreme Court would see things my way. But if I were a betting man, I’d bet a few Bolívars, continentals, and papiermarks that the tariff situation will be resolved, one way or another, before the Court gets around to the matter.

In case it was too subtle, that last line means I have no idea what’s going to happen next, or when. More later.