And a court just enjoined the Navy and DoD from redetermining Senator Kelly's retirement rank.

And "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

I think the 14th Amendment has something to say about this. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." 1/2

This is simply idiocy. The existing 1951 Danish-US Agreement offers the US everything it needs to meet its national security concerns. notesfortheperplexed.substack.com/p/the-best-w...

Many of us heartedly agree. The existing agreements between the U.S., Denmark and the Greenlandic Autonomous Government offer the framework needed for any security issues. It is madness to bully such an important ally. notesfortheperplexed.substack.com/p/the-best-w...

notesfortheperplexed.substack.com/p/the-might-... 14/14

I explore these themes in several posts. notesfortheperplexed.substack.com/p/why-should... 13/14

Yes, others have thrived--but so have we. We should not so easily give up a strategy that has worked so well for over 80 years. 12/14

By all measure the rule-based international order has been good for the American people and for American power. Our GDP per capita is at the top. Our economy is the most innovative and productive in the world. Our military alliances are the envy of our adversaries. 11/14

All of the hegemons of the past have long lost their power. Spain, France, UK, Germany and Russia. The U.S., however, has remained the predominant power for 80 years under this restrained exercise of power. 10/14

"When the U.S. acts like a rulemaker rather than a shakedown artist, it buys something more valuable than fear: consent. Consent is what turns hegemony into leadership — and leadership into a system that other states find preferable to the alternatives." 9/14

As Zakaria explains, other nations do so because the US has not behaved like a classic hegemon. Instead, "it has usually tried to translate raw strength into something others can accept: rules, institutions and legitimacy." 8/14

Fared Zakaria offers a great explanation. Unlike all other hegemonies in history, other capable nations are not balancing against us. Instead they are allied with us. wapo.st/4pzV1VD 7/14

The short answer is that these legal restraints—even though they may limit our use of military power—advance our national interest in a stable world. 6/14

Of course, this legalistic argument begs the real question: why did the U.S. agree to these restraints in the first place? And why shouldn’t the U.S. with draw from these Treaties? 5/14

It makes no more sense for a President to ask “Why should I comply with the U.N. Charter” that it would be for him to ask “Why should I comply with the Administrative Procedures Act.” 4/14

The legalistic, if unsatisfying answer, is that the U.S. Constitution requires that we obey these limits because the key Treaties have the force of law. The Supremacy Clause lists “all Treaties” as part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” 3/14

This deserves a response. Why should we let international law, and the U.S. created rules-based international order interfere with U.S. action. I will lay out a fellow responses in this thread. 2/14