US foreign policy recent trends by zetpress.com? Russia pressed Mr. Trump to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin after the tense exchange of diplomatic expulsions last week. Mr. Trump had floated the idea of meeting with Mr. Putin at the White House in a March 20 phone call, a Russian official said. At the time, Mr. Trump had told reporters that he expected to “be seeing President Putin in the not-too-distant future.” But on Friday, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on seven of Russia’s richest men and 17 top government officials, penalties designed to punish Mr. Putin’s inner circle for Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and other global transgressions. It was another indication that as Congress and much of the administration pushes for increased pressure in response to Mr. Putin’s aggressions, Mr. Trump continues to advocate good relations with his Russian counterpart.
On September 16 the editorial board of the New York Times did the impossible. It said something nice about President Trump. “The normalization of relations between Israel and two Arab states, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, is, on the face of it, a good and beneficial development,” the editors wrote. They even went so far as to say that the “Trump administration deserves credit for brokering it.” I had to read that sentence twice to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. Perhaps the world really is ending.
US Foreign politics and Brexit 2020 latest : Americans are likely to greet this news with bemused puzzlement. How is all of this not already the case? After all, free trade between the states has been the sine qua non of American nationhood since the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. In fact, the regulation of interstate commerce was the primary role envisioned for Congress by the Founders. Furthermore, trade deals signed by the Federal government have always embraced the whole of the American market. How can a nation-state even exist without these basic building blocks of national sovereignty?
In every instance we adhered to the process explicitly laid out in the Constitution: The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent. It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear an oath to uphold and defend. Is Biden saying that McConnell should ignore his sacred constitutional duty? Biden knew then, as he knows now, that there’s no constitutional duty, nor is there any precedent, either prohibiting or requiring Republicans to fill a vacancy. Nor is there any prohibition (as nearly every Democrat has already argued) against “rushing” such a nomination. Three Supreme Court justices have been confirmed with less than 45 days — including Ginsburg, who was nominated by a Democrat and confirmed by a Democrat-majority Senate. As my colleague Dan McLaughlin points out in meticulous historical detail, every real norm points to the Republicans’ filling the vacancy. Read more info at here.