151 Comments
User's avatar
Ben's avatar

"Deeply thuggish." Exactly right. Kidnapping a foreign leader, spiriting him away to stand trial, claiming you will then "run" that leader's country, and all to obtain the country's natural resources -- that is what rogue nations do. I had not thought the United States a rogue nation until now.

Expand full comment
Potter's avatar
2dEdited

We are not a rogue thug nation... we have to get rid of this administration... can't wait 3 years. In one year, so much damage. This is not us. Despair kills. I fear it.

Expand full comment
Dan Bielaski's avatar

The Trump administration continues to act in disgusting, deplorable ways. When reading today's headline in The Hill, "Senate to vote next week to block Trump’s military action against Venezuela", I can only shake my head at Congress' continued fecklessness.

Expand full comment
Potter's avatar
2dEdited

This has to play out; it happened on the weekend- of course. There has to be a tipping point. I am hoping for that with each more egregious act. I am giving them a chance.. this has to turn. Trump and Co. in the meantime are biting off a lot more than they can chew.. Venezuela is a mess we cannot deal with without sending troops. Also there is a limit to what even the MAGA crowd here will go along with. If the weather was not so damn cold people would still be out.

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

It's a little late now don't you think? Congress and the Senate (republican run) can stay on their extended vacations!

Expand full comment
Potter's avatar

However late it is Congress still has to act.

Expand full comment
J Thomas's avatar

And do what? Undo the coronation?

Expand full comment
Potter's avatar

Start impeachment.. begin a shadow government or in a Democratic caucus. Televise it. Use it as campaign material... getting ready. maybe people who have no hope or confidence will gain some.

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

They haven't in any of his questionable actions so far!

Expand full comment
Potter's avatar
21hEdited

They will-- as I said this just happened before the weekend...the New Year's holiday!

Expand full comment
celeste k.'s avatar

It is NOT us, and I want this government stopped. We really do have to get rid of this current administration. The only recourse I see is the protection of our elections and their integrity, and getting massive numbers of voters to the polls to vote. In the meantime, we need to get Congress to get the lead out and do their jobs. Call, write or show up to their offices, whatever it takes. We can't waste any time.

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

Exactly! WE are not a rogue thug nation, but our current administration is! Trump is doing this for the oil in Venezuela! If he cares so much about drug smuggling, why did he release the drug lord that was already serving time in our prison? This administration needs to be gone. So much has been done in one long year and still 3 more to go? When will our country step up and remove this trump regime?

Expand full comment
Jack Jordan's avatar

The US is not a rogue nation. Our nation is the victim of a gallery of rogues. They constantly attack and undermine our Constitution and violate their own oaths to "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" (Article II) and to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (5 U.S.C. 3331).

They constantly work to establish a government of men and not of laws. That is the vicious opposite of the plain text and plain purpose of our Constitution. As Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS highlighted for the nation in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, “The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.” In 1988, Justice Scalia did a decent job of emphasizing the same in his dissent in Morrison v. Olson.

The simple, self-evident truth is that "We the People" to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" emphatically vested unitary power to start a war (in the manner in which Trump is doing so) only in our directly-elected representatives in Congress (not the indirectly-elected President).

"We the People" expressly and emphatically "vested in a Congress of the United States" absolutely "All legislative Powers" that were "granted" by our Constitution. The People expressly and emphatically delegated the power to involve us in a war (in the manner in which Trump is doing so) only to our representatives in Congress. We expressly emphasized that "All legislative Powers" included all powers "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

The powers to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" were identified explicitly by the People because those power implicitly had the power to involve the People in a war. An illegal war obviously is one of the fastest, harshest ways for people to "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

In our original Constitution, the People also limited the primary war powers of even Congress to two years. Immediately after the People vested in Congress the power to start a war, the People gave Congress the power (and expressly limited Congress’s power) “To raise and support Armies.” The People emphasized that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” That provision highlights that the People expected Congress to use the power of the purse to protect us from unconstitutional wars, e.g., wars started or perpetuated by the President in violation of our Constitution.

Trump and the people using and supporting him are trying to turn the apex of power (established by our Constitution) on its head. In 1926 in Myers v. United States (which is much discussed these days, including in connection with Trump v. Slaughter (currently being considered by SCOTUS), Chief Justice Taft (who previously was the President, and before that he was the Governor of the Philippines and Cuba) authored the opinion for SCOTUS, which included the following:

"To assume that the only source of the power to remove is the power to appoint is to put the pyramid on its apex; whereas you put the pyramid on its base when you say that the power to remove is part of [ ] the 'executive power,' [which is expressly and specifically limited by the duty] to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' a mandate of tremendous significance and import."

The 1979 opinion of SCOTUS in Nevada v. Hall also included the following relevant highlight about the structure of power that our Constitution overturned:

"Since the King was at the apex of the feudal pyramid, there was no higher court in which he could be sued. The King’s immunity rested primarily on the structure of the feudal system and secondarily on a fiction that the King could do no wrong."

Expand full comment
Carole's avatar

And our nation is NOT A ROGUE NATION, we just (HA) have a rogue regime leading(?) it

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

That is true! The trump regime is the rogue! They must go just as he made Maduro go!

Expand full comment
Ben's avatar

The distinction isn't valid. The so-called “Trump regime” is the government of our country. That government speaks for us. So Trump speaks for us. What he does, he does in our name. You can't just write him off as if he were masquerading as the president, some sort of occupying force. He really is the president, more’s the pity. So if he causes us to act as a rogue nation, then we are the ones acting that way.

Expand full comment
Jack Jordan's avatar

It's well worth recalling what Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS highlighted in Marbury v. Madison. “The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.”

"The constitution is" necessarily the "superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means." So "the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law," and "courts" cannot "close their eyes on the constitution, and see only [some other purported] law." "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."

Any "act of the legislature" (any purported law purportedly granting the President unconstitutional powers) "repugnant to the constitution, is void." So any "act of" any other purported public servant "repugnant to the constitution, is void." Any purported doctrine (e.g., the so-called Monroe Doctrine) by which the President usurps powers "repugnant to the constitution, is void."

Any other purported theory or "doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void; is yet, in practice, completely obligatory."

Trump and the people supporting and using him are rogues. We the People have the power to do something about what they're doing. We are not a rogue nation.

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

He does not represent what America has always stood for! He represents himself and the publicity and recognition that he craves so much! He does not represent all the people, he represents his MAGA core only!

Expand full comment
Roxanna Springer's avatar

He swore, an oath as did the members of Congress and the judiciary, to preserve the Constitution. He and they are now breakers of that oath.

Expand full comment
Carole's avatar

NOPE

Expand full comment
Frederick J Frahm's avatar

Sorry to point out that you are making a distinction without a difference here.

Expand full comment
J Thomas's avatar

77 million people voted for the turd who tried to overthrow the republic. To say that the USA is a rogue nation is an understatement.

Expand full comment
Peter's avatar

It's not what rogue nations do, it's what rogue super powers do. Witness Russia. Soon, witness China.

Expand full comment
J Thomas's avatar

Trump once made reference to 💩 hole countries. He’s turned the USA into one.

Expand full comment
Carole's avatar

He is a ginormous pile of turds in the Oval Office… there’s a difference

Expand full comment
Christopher Sheahen's avatar

I enjoy your reference to The West Wing, one of the great TV series.

But you make a good point which resonates with me. When I read the news this morning I asked myself if this is what our country has become? Does Trump want to be a bully on the world stage?

We the people are better than this. We should not forget that.

Thanks for your opinions.

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

He seems to believe (in his unsteady mind) that HE is in charge of the world. He is naming the next countries he will invade? HE released a convicted drug lord who was serving time! Is he expecting that drug lord to stop his business? HE wants Maduro's second in line to bow down to HIM? I am afraid of what may come next from this regime. I cannot call it an administration! It isn't!

Expand full comment
J Thomas's avatar

77 million of our neighbors voted for this. We should remember that. They walk, many of them pardoned, among us and a lot of them are armed.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

Two corollary issues which are not legal issues per se, but clearly loom over the analysis. First is the almost total incoherence of Trump’s statement this morning, his chaotic thought pattern which seemed to spontaneously learch into the statement that we were doing this for oil, coupled with his physical condition, including his speech pattern and listing heavily to his left , raise the question whether Trump has lost the capacity to carry out the duties of the Presidency. Second is the deepening crisis posed by the White House’s continued failure to release the Epstein files and the ever increasing implication that the White House is terrified about what lurks in the doc and its desperation to divert attention from the matter.

Expand full comment
Lance Khrome's avatar

Here's the basic argument, stripped down to its essentials: Venezuela was stealing Venezuelan oil, and now "we" are going to steal it back...QED.

Expand full comment
Emily Kirk's avatar

I agree. But then isn’t it clear that Steve’s question number 1 is proven to be false by question number 4? Why is anyone giving credence to using military in aid of executing an arrest warrant when Trump says we are taking the oil and running the country in the same presser?

Expand full comment
Andrew Fischer's avatar

Venezuela was not stealing our oil: it was sharing its oil with Cuba. That is a mortal sin to Marc Rubio, that son of Cuban refugee Aristocracy. We are taking Venezuela’s oil so that the upstart Cubans who dare to challenge United States hegemony will remain economically suffocated. Next will be the other populist Latin American states that dare challenge Trump’s right wing friends.

Expand full comment
Martyn Roetter's avatar

An obvious question perhaps. But why should foreign military not feel justified to invade the US and abduct US officials and politicians their country regards as criminals to put them on trial in their courts? Assuming they think they are capable

.

Expand full comment
VTGS's avatar

This Trump regime believes Might Makes Right and that as the world’s superpower they need not worry about other countries trying to retaliate. Cf Hegseth and his extremely embarrassing “FAFO” line which he threw at the assembled generals last year and alluded to again at yesterday’s ghastly press. That simple.

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

As the old saying goes, all is fair in love and war! Trump is putting us at war with South America!

Expand full comment
Cathy R's avatar

We have the world's largest military. Who would take the chance?

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

Our military is being run by a talk show host!

Expand full comment
The NLRG's avatar

nuclear escalation

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

That might be the worst outcome of all of this trump regime crap!

Expand full comment
The NLRG's avatar

unlikely as venezuela does not have nuclear weapons

Expand full comment
Darla Jones's avatar

"It should go without saying that the United States has precisely zero legal authority, under domestic or international law, to pressure or otherwise cajoke a foreign sovereign into doing “what we want” or risk invasion. " typo. you meant cajole

Expand full comment
Mark Epping-Jordan's avatar

On the contrary, I think we should adopt Prof. Vladeck's new term "cajoke" which is a far better way to characterize Trump's stumbling, bumbling efforts to persuade people to do what he wants than "cajole."

Expand full comment
Louise's avatar

I found myself thinking the same thing.

Expand full comment
David H.'s avatar

The military obeyed an unlawful order. The invasion or incursion isn't just unlawful--and a tenuous bridge to lawfulness might be built by, say, Bill Barr--but it's clearly contrary to the structure of the constitution. The administration made a case neither to congress nor to the public about what we're doing in Venezuela or why or how.

Now tell me what will happen when this same military, perhaps aided by the less professional agents of ICE, is ordered to interfere in the November election. For extra credit, provide the term for the form of government where the military obeys whatever order the leader gives regardless of the merit of the order. The answer "constitutional republic" is incorrect.

Expand full comment
Carole's avatar

So where was Kegsbreath in all this? I hope somebody is tracking everyone’s war crimes for our trial in 28

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

Do we have to wait until 28?

Expand full comment
Carole's avatar

With this Congress and SCOTUS and presidential immunity/pardon??🤷‍♀️😢

Expand full comment
John Mitchell's avatar

In today's press conference on the Venezuela military operation, Marco Rubio said:

"We are going to be running it with a group and we will make sure it is run properly. We will rebuild the oil infrastructure. It will cost billions of dollars and be paid for by the oil companies directly. They will be reimbursed for what they are doing."

That sounds like the administration made arrangements with oil companies before the attack, though none of the journalists asked about that. Rubio and Trump also said that they didn't notify Congress beforehand because of the risk of leaks. If they notified oil companies beforehand, they evidently trust those companies' executives more than they trust the U.S. Congress.

Expand full comment
Cathy R's avatar

and who is reimbursing the oil companies? Taxpayers continuing to subsidize big oil while trump and oligarchs rake in massive profits.

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

Do the oil companies know what their next projects will be? We are already subsidizing the oil companies! Does trump even know that? He seems to think the oil companies are going to just drop what they are doing and get down to Venezuela (I'm sure they will be welcome) and get that oil and the money!

Expand full comment
George Chuzi's avatar

Bearing in mind that Venezuelan oil is "heavy oil," which takes longer and is more expensive to refine than our "light" oil. The market for Venezuelan oil is mostly countries that, because of sanctions or similar reasons (read: China, Iran, Cuba), don't have ready access to alternatives. Market analysts suggested today that's likely why the oil futures market hasn't budged.

Expand full comment
Carole's avatar

Is “the group” a bunch of greedy swine looking to profit off others pain and suffering as in the “detention centers” and flying immigrants to them?

Expand full comment
RepairRestoreSafeguard's avatar

Interesting!

Expand full comment
Rain Robinson's avatar

Excellent legal analysis. What a shame our US has been hijacked by authoritarians who aim to copy the unlawful actions of dictatorships.

Expand full comment
jeff ingram's avatar

Even if there is not a majority of anti-Trump + pro-Congress-war-power members in the House and the Senate, are there not at least enough to form a constitutional caucus to try to condemn the Venezuela law-breaking by President Demento?

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

They are forced to bow down to the trump regime. I haven't quite figured out why, but it certainly seems to be what is happening!

Expand full comment
Dan Kowalski's avatar

Nothing gray at all about the boat strikes. 100+ counts of murder, plain and simple.

Expand full comment
Mark Siegel's avatar

I love the West Wing as much as the next guy. But the US has a long and illustrious history of meddling in other countries, from orchestrating coups, assassinations and invasions. The US has been "deeply thuggish" for quite a while, and, sadly, not just part of the "league of ordinary nations," but more aptly a league of thuggish nations.

Expand full comment
Carole's avatar

I’m not much of a historian~ like where did we meddle? I’ve always imagined our involvement being a part of alliances maybe I don’t want to know -sigh

Expand full comment
Mark Siegel's avatar

Sorry, there's been so much meddling by the US into other countries that I can't possibly mention them all. I'm most familiar with Iran and Central and South America, but there's many other places where the US meddled. But if you're interested you could start with this Wikipedia page on "US involvement in regime change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

Expand full comment
Carole's avatar

I knew I shouldn’t but …

According to one study, the U.S. performed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections from 1946 to 2000.[6] According to another study, the U.S. engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change during the Cold War.[7] Of course the footnotes are useless in this paste but …😢

Expand full comment
Ellen Bender's avatar

Thanks for this. Off topic but did you see this piece in the Guardian that mentions your great grandfather and (uncle?) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/01/zohran-mamdani-new-york-mayor-antisemitism

Expand full comment
Nate Spiller's avatar

His father.

Expand full comment
John McGee's avatar

A “Thuggish” President and a “Feckless” Congress—-real.

Expand full comment
Vijaya Venkatesan's avatar

Do Americans have the memory span of a goldfish? What about Reagan and Grenada without even the excuse of drugs.

Expand full comment
Michael Guenon's avatar

“Rescuing” medical school students.

Expand full comment
christopher o'loughlin's avatar

Steve,

Five arguments about US JSOC military invasion of sovereign nation, ensuing extra territorial arrest of Venezuela's President, first lady, and others make logical legal sense. Impeachment is a remedy for unconstitutional acts. Trump's two prior impeachment's are just the beginning. We are in this together. No Kings. Peace.

Christopher and family

Expand full comment