“Trump's Yemen veto sets stage for potential Supreme Court confrontation," CNN Opinion, 17 April 2019
"On Tuesday, President Donald Trump vetoed a bipartisan congressional resolution that would have forced his administration to end military support for Saudi Arabia in the war in Yemen. This resolution was the first time that Congress has invoked the 1973 War Powers Resolution (often referred to as the "War Powers Act"), which limits the President's ability to commit US forces abroad without congressional approval.
In addition to the significance of the veto itself, Trump's decision could lead to a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, which would dramatically expand or limit the President's power to use military force abroad.”
"Trump's latest Iran decision sets a dangerous precedent" CNN Opinion, 9 April 2019
“On Monday, President Donald Trump formally designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). This designation will do nothing to limit the IRGC's malign activities, but it may criminalize the activities of millions of Iranians and foreign tourists -- and set a precedent that Washington may come to regret.
According to the White House statement, this is the first time that the US has designated a unit of a foreign government as a "terrorist organization." In response, Tehran has already designated US Central Command as a terrorist organization. And it's not hard to imagine other adversarial governments designating American individuals or military units as "terrorists" for political reasons.”
"A rousing case for Nato," CNN Opinion, 4 April 2019
"The secretary general did not only focus on material gains and use the language of "sovereign right" and "national interest" to appeal to President Trump. He also emphasized the NATO allies' shared values that the American public can appreciate: That "there is no higher cause than freedom" and that the Atlantic is not a barrier, "rather a great blue bridge to new lands and new possibilities." It is certainly a lovely sentiment.
After all, who prefers isolation to working with partners? Who prefers physical barriers to human connection?