Latest news with #Nixon
Daily Mirror
4 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Sex and the City icon shares that her son has gone on hunger strike
Seph Mozes, the 28-year-old son of Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon, is taking part in a hunger strike in solidarity with Palestine to call for an end to the US arming of Israel Seph Mozes, son of Sex and the City actress Cynthia Nixon, is on a hunger strike in solidarity with Palestine. Mozes, who is Jewish, is taking part in the strike as part of his advocacy with Jewish Voices For Peace (JVP), which is calling for an end to America's arming of Israel. Nixon, who is a prominent activist, describes her 28-year-old son as "a quite observant Jew" who is "very steeped in Jewish Voices for Peace," before sharing that he "doesn't have illusions that he's going to end the war, but I think he wants to do everything he can". JVP describes itself as the "world's largest Jewish organisation standing in solidarity with Palestine" and currently has over 765,403 members. Writing on its website, the grassroots organisation states: "We envision a world where all people - from the U.S. to Palestine - live in freedom, justice, equality, and dignity. Like generations of Jewish leftists before us, we fight for the liberation of all people." During a discussion on Wednesday at Newsweek's Manhattan office, Nixon, who is not Jewish herself, shared that her son was partially inspired to support Palestine because his paternal grandparents are Holocaust survivors. The actress and activist, best known for playing Miranda Hobbes in Sex and the City and its reboot And Just Like That, revealed: "He and five other of his compatriots are doing a hunger strike in Chicago [since] Monday, for Gaza. 'Stop starving Gaza, stop arming Israel'." Nixon, 59, described her son as "a smart person with his ear to the ground" and added: "His grandparents were Holocaust survivors, and he just feels like he can't stand by and not do everything he can." The actress went on a hunger strike herself in November 2023 as she called on Joe Biden, the US President at the time, to support a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine. Addressing a crowd outside the White House, Nixon said at the time: "As the mother of Jewish children whose grandparents are Holocaust survivors, I have been asked by my son to use any voice I have to affirm as loudly as possible that 'never again' means 'never again for everyone.'" "In seven weeks, Israel has killed more civilians on a tiny strip of land than was killed in 20 years of war in the entire country of Afghanistan. "I am sick and tired of people explaining away by saying that civilian casualties are a routine toll of war. There is nothing routine about these figures. There is nothing routine about these deaths." Nixon made a heartfelt plea to Biden, suggesting that his own personal tragedies should make him more empathetic towards the Palestinian death toll. "I would like to make a personal plea to a president who has, himself, experienced such devastating personal loss, to connect with that empathy for which he is so well known and to look at the children of Gaza and imagine that they were his children," she implored.
The National
5 hours ago
- Politics
- The National
Does Trump have the authority to declare war on Iran?
President Donald Trump's announcement that he would make a decision in two weeks about whether to directly involve US forces in Israel's war on Iran has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate on exactly what military powers America's leader has. The President has indicated in recent days that the US could carry out strikes against Iran in support of its ally. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. According to the US Constitution, it's the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - that has the power to declare war. This stretches back to 1973, when Congress passed the War Powers Act - also referred to as the War Powers Resolution - which sought to prevent the executive branch from declaring war without congressional approval. It was initiated shortly after a series of presidents unilaterally escalated the Vietnam war, specifically when Richard Nixon ordered the bombing and invasion of Cambodia without a green light from Congress. Yet there are several loopholes that various US presidents have used since the passage of the War Powers Act to exercise their ability to influence military policy. There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the White House from assisting other countries, with the current example being Israel. Some legal experts have also pointed out that the US Constitution, specifically Article II Section 2, states that "[the] President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - that is, the White House has a legal precedent to try and mobilise the US military to some extent. "There is a constitutional ambiguity between the role of Commander-in-Chief and the congressional power to declare war," said Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in upstate New York. Prof Kneeland said that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, George W Bush, president at the time, sought and obtained authorisation from Congress to use military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, These so-called Authorisations to Use Military Force (AUMF) have since been used to justify actions against ISIS and Hezbollah, as well. "It may be that President Trump will use this as a pretext should he decide to attack Iran, which has been identified with supporting Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organisation in the US," Prof Kneeland said, noting that laws passed after 9/11 blurred clarity on who could declare war. It could also be a matter of semantics, with the US providing assistance to Israel without ever mentioning war. Yet there is already pushback from Democrats and Republicans, as politicians seek to head off any potential unilateral decision by Mr Trump to move ahead with military action against Iran. In the Senate, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution seeking to make debate and a vote compulsory before any military strike on Iran. And in the House of Representatives, Republican Thomas Massie introduced a similar resolution related to the situation in Iran. Yet resolutions like this, compared to laws, often lack enforcement mechanisms. Prof Kneeland also points out that constitutionally, Mr Trump could easily block them. "These are subject to President Trump's veto power and would require a two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto," he said. "With both the House and Senate in the hands of the Republicans, who overwhelmingly support President Trump, this seems highly unlikely." So, even with the 1973 War Powers Act, the ball appears to be in Mr Trump's court. Iran, meanwhile, is holding talks with European powers as its war with Israel enters a second week.
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Israel-Iran War: Can Trump bomb Iran without asking? Capitol Hill says no, invokes War Powers Act
President Donald Trump is keeping his cards close. When asked whether the United States would join Israel's escalating military confrontation with Iran, he simply said, 'I may do it. I may not.' That was on June 18, just days after Israel launched strikes on Iranian territory. Since then, speculation has grown over whether Trump might authorise a U.S. military operation—without getting the green light from Congress . According to Department of State spokeswoman Tammy Bruce, 'He is the singular guiding hand about what will be occurring from this point forward.' But many lawmakers disagree. And they're rushing to reassert control. Congress says, "Not without us" The U.S. Constitution is clear: only Congress has the power to declare war. Live Events 'This is not our war,' said Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.' Massie has introduced a resolution under the 1973 War Powers Act to stop any unauthorised U.S. strikes on Iran. He's joined by Democrat Ro Khanna of California, who posted on X, 'Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?' Over in the Senate, Democrat Tim Kaine has introduced a similar resolution. 'This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress,' he said. The War Powers Act: What it actually does Passed in 1973 after the Vietnam War and President Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia, the War Powers Act was designed to limit the president's ability to launch military action unilaterally. It says, The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of launching military action. Military deployment without congressional approval is limited to 60–90 days. Congress must be consulted 'in every possible instance' before troops are committed abroad. The law was passed over Nixon's veto—but almost every president since has found ways to work around it. Why it's back in the spotlight As Israeli airstrikes continue and Trump hints at joining in, lawmakers worry that the U.S. could be dragged into another prolonged Middle East war. That's exactly what the War Powers Act was supposed to prevent. Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, has proposed the No War Against Iran Act , which would prohibit the use of federal funds for any attack on Iran without a formal declaration of war or congressional authorisation. 'The recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict,' Senator Kaine warned. Can the President Act without Congress? Technically, the president is commander-in-chief of the military. Under Article II of the Constitution, Trump can respond to 'sudden attacks' or threats. But the power to start a war—that belongs to Congress. Still, history tells a different story. Since World War II, U.S. presidents have authorised military operations in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Libya, Somalia, and more—without formal declarations of war. They've relied instead on broad laws like the 2001 and 2002 Authorisations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), passed after the 9/11 attacks and before the 2003 Iraq invasion. Trump used the 2002 AUMF to justify the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020. So does the War Powers Act have any real power? It's complicated. Congress can vote to end military action, but the president can veto that decision. Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate—a rare feat in a divided Washington. In 2019, Congress tried to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Trump vetoed it. Then again in 2020, after the Soleimani strike, Congress passed a bill to limit Trump's powers to launch war on Iran. Trump vetoed that too. The War Powers Act has been criticised for being more symbolic than effective. Even President Joe Biden once led a Senate subcommittee that concluded the law was falling short of its original purpose. Opinions split, even within parties Not all Democrats back Kaine's resolution. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania has said he would vote against it. He believes Trump should retain the option to preemptively strike Iran's nuclear infrastructure. On the Republican side, some are more cautious. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said: 'No president can bomb another country without the permission of Congress.' He added, 'It's always been my belief that you don't go to war without the approval of Congress and bombing other countries is obviously war.' But others support Trump's freedom to act. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said, 'A single bombing run, historically, has not been understood to require congressional authorisation.' Sustained warfare, he agreed, would require Congress to act. Senator Lindsey Graham took it a step further. 'If diplomacy is not successful,' he said, 'I would urge President Trump to go all in… If that means flying with Israel, fly with Israel.' The House and Senate are currently on recess, but both will be forced to vote on the new resolutions once they return. The outcome will test the strength of Congress's war-making authority. Meanwhile, Trump has made it clear he's watching the conflict closely. After cutting short a G7 trip in Canada, he returned to Washington and declared, 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding... We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' At its heart, this isn't just a legal or political issue. It's about whether the people, through their elected representatives, get to decide when America goes to war. For decades, war decisions have been drifting away from Congress and towards the Oval Office . This moment could shift that balance—or cement it. With Iran's nuclear programme in the crosshairs, and Israel already striking, the next move could redraw the map of the Middle East—and reshape America's role in it. And if history is any guide, the decision could be made by one man, not 535 lawmakers.
Wall Street Journal
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Marina Whitman, Economist Who Advised Nixon and General Motors, Dies at 90
Marina Whitman was thrilled when President Richard Nixon announced her appointment in January 1972 as one of three members of the Council of Economic Advisers, the first woman to serve in that role. He cited her 'intellectual ability of the first magnitude.' Then she was annoyed when much of the reaction focused on her femininity rather than her intellect.
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Why higher oil prices may not change US energy policy
As military actions between Iran and Israel continued, two tankers collided Tuesday, caught fire and spilled oil in the Gulf of Oman. The incident briefly sent shock waves through the oil market as investors contemplated a closure of the Strait of Hormuz. One estimate found that a closure in the crucial shipping route could result in oil prices soaring to $120 a barrel. So would higher oil prices push more people, or governments, to move away from fossil fuels? Short-term spikes in oil prices might translate into temporary changes in consumption patterns, analysts have said. But they are not likely to have a significant impact on long-term oil production or consumer habits. Oil shocks, often accompanied by increases in gasoline prices, have bedeviled presidents since the Nixon era. But while no one likes paying more for gasoline, big price spikes have not translated into sweeping, long-term changes to domestic energy policy in the United States. To understand why, Meg Jacobs, a historian who teaches at Princeton University and the author of 'Panic at the Pump: The Energy Crisis and the Transformation of American Politics in the 1970s,' pointed to two lessons from the energy crisis of the 1970s. Energy crises and policy change The first lesson from the energy crisis, Jacobs said, is that even though it worried voters, it didn't lead to the development of a more robust domestic energy policy in the United States. In the 1970s, after supply shocks led to high gas prices, long lines at the pump and even rationing in some states, many politicians agreed that the United States should reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Then-President Jimmy Carter flirted with fixes like supporting renewables as he encouraged consumers to conserve energy. But big promises to fix the energy crisis fell flat. 'The lesson of the 1970s was that if Watergate and Vietnam taught Americans that governments lie, then the failure to solve the energy crisis taught them that government was ineffective,' Jacobs said. Instead of reducing reliance on foreign oil by rethinking domestic energy policy, Jacobs said, the United States under President Ronald Reagan stepped up its military presence in the Middle East. Congress is currently debating the rollback of many of the renewable energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden's signature climate law. The fate of this policy may prove far more consequential for the energy transition than an oil supply disruption in the Middle East. Voters and higher prices The second lesson, Jacobs said, is that sacrifice is not popular. In 1979, Carter angered voters when he made a speech suggesting people should use less energy. He lost his bid for reelection. 'Americans would not tolerate increases at the pump,' Jacobs said. 'They were not willing to make short-term sacrifices for long-term gains.' Biden and President Donald Trump both came of age during the energy crisis, Jacobs pointed out. And both have prioritized low costs for consumers with their energy agendas. During his term, Biden decided against proposing a carbon tax in favor of the tax breaks featured in the IRA, and Trump promised to slash energy prices on the campaign trail. So what's the long-term prognosis for America's energy mix? As domestic policies come and go, the past decade or so has seen a crucial shift in energy economics. Even if clean energy subsidies go away, solar and wind have gotten so cheap that those industries are now here to stay, Jacobs said. And domestic politics aside, oil may be fading in importance, albeit slowly. A Tuesday report from the International Energy Agency found that despite geopolitical uncertainties, oil demand is projected to plateau by 2030. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
