How do recent US federal immigration enforcement actions challenge the balance of power between federal and state/local governments? Consider the deployment of ICE and DHS agents, the state and city lawsuits against the federal government, and public officials’ responses to these operations. What theoretical frameworks help explain the tensions between local authority and federal enforcement in this case?

As political scientists, we often manage to produce good analysis of political events years after the fact, because when events are unfolding we simple don't have enough access to information. Having said that, let's try to analyze the current situation using the political theories available to us! Here are some points: - Maduro is NOT the legitimate president of Venezuela - elections were held, González won the election by a landslide. Maduro's regime then ignored the results, staid on power illegally and repressed the opposition. González is currently in exile. This raises questions about how the international community should react that violation of law - only about half a dozen countries (all dictatorships) have recognized the Maduro regime as legitimate. - The military action was a violation of Venezuela's sovereignty. This raises questions about how the international community can and should respond. - What does a rules-based international order look like? Who should be enforcing international law (laws are only effective when they are enforced)? By what authority? So many questions, right now. I obviously recognize the happiness many Venezuelans feel right now. In the best of possible worlds, Venezuela would transition to a stable democracy with free and fair elections and human rights. Do we live in that world, though?

Old video

Tommorow on The Headline Eye www.wnrv1081.com