Over the last year, I have done a series of Roman history diaries, under the title of "Hadrian's Forum". I would like to start doing a series of ancient Greek history diaries, and so I will start here. I am not sure how much interest there is here for a series on classical Greece, so I am hoping this diary will answer this question. While the Romans provided the structural foundations of the modern world, the Greeks provided the intellectual foundations. Greek hegemony (led by Athens and Sparta) gave way to Roman hegemony, which gave way to (after centuries of darkness) British hegemony, which gave way to American hegemony. The Greek influence is especially apparent in our politics (the word itself derives from the Greek "polis" which means "city-state"). Athens, for example, created the first democracy ("demos" being Greek for "people") during a period in which it was being strong-armed by its rival Sparta. Sparta, on the other hand, provided the underlying foundations for the military and patriotic spirit we have today. From all of Greece, we have borrowed other such concepts, such as science, philosophy, theology, and history, among the most notable topics. Here I will talk about the first of the two major classical Greek Wars: the Persian War.

Recently, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, Larry Sabato, wrote an article, called Time to Change the Unit Rule. In this article, he talks about a clause in the constitution that is virtually unknown. In the event that no presidential candidate emerges with a majority of electoral votes, the election for president is determined in the house. However, a majority of state delegations determines the president, not a majority of the members of the house. The state delegations all vote, and the majority vote in each delegation determines the way in which that delegation votes. Each delegation, regardless of size, gets one vote, and thus twenty six delegations are needed for a majority. Sabato's problem had to do with the fact that every state got the same single vote. The block voting concept, however, is the same as what the Electoral College uses. In effect, a 49% minority has no say, because the state, in both instances, votes as a block. This mechanism originated 2,500 years ago, at the dawn of the Roman Republic

"But where was the Roman people to be found? Not surely amongst the mixed multitude of slaves and strangers that filled the streets of Rome; a servile populace, as devoid of spirit as destitute of property."

About 2,000 years ago, a hyper-militarized, authoritarian state dominated by professional soldiers, domestic security forces, and international financiers, publicly auctioned off their nation's most prestigious political office to the highest bidder.

Recently I wrote a diary, Hadrian's Forum: Our Senate Bows to Bush, Rome's to Caesar; Fall of Rome's Republic, Part 5, which described how the absolute capitulation of the Roman Senate to the unitary executive Julius Caesar led to the destruction of the Roman Republic, and the creation of the Roman Empire. Tonight I want to describe one key factor that led up to these events, and which ultimately led to the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire itself. Rome actually had its own military industrial complex, which began shortly after the greatest military victories in the history of the Roman Republic. Rome's military industrial complex was actually similar to our own. Both began as a result of imperialism. Both reached their climax under the unitary executiveships of two petulant, if unaccomplished, boy emperors who owed their power solely to their fathers ("You, boy, owe everything to your name", Mark Antony once said of his own boy emperor). God help us if the similarities continue from this point on.

Tacitus, writing of the first Senate meeting after the death of Augustus Caesar (Annals 1.8):

Messala Valerius further proposed that the oath of allegiance to Tiberius should be renewed yearly, and when Tiberius asked him whether it was at his bidding that he had brought forward this motion, Valerius replied that he had proposed it spontaneously, and that in whatever concerned the State he would use only his own discretion, even at the risk of offending. This was the only style of adulation which yet remained.

The pathetic and quite ridiculous record of the Roman Senate's capitulation to imperial power is rife with analogues to the collapse of the US Congress during the last two generations in matters of national security and international affairs. And this without the Romans' excuse that they feared for their lives.

During the Principate, the Roman Senate essentially struck a deal with successive emperors. Caesar could consolidate actual power and govern as he wished as long as Senators retained some outward signs of power and the status that went with the dignity of holding high office. The appearance of being consulted occasionally by the emperor, the public repute that came from "debating" matters of state, the feeling of importance, the Senators were willing to exchange for actual independence. Rather than try to check the emperor's aggrandizement of power, they merely sought to be co-opted. "Deliberation" meant finding out what the commander in chief of the armies wanted and giving it to him - occasionally giving even more than he asked, just to flex the Senate's atrophying muscles.

Any fool of a Senator who made the slightest show of actual independence was immediately undercut by his fellows. So eager were they to win the favor of Power, and so painfully aware of the network of spies that potentially knew of every word they spoke.

All of this is brought to mind by the supine behavior of the US Congress during the last week, especially its precipitous abandonment of the Fourth Amendment in exchange for mere assurances that the President will have to consult them now and then in the future about his rationales for spying upon citizens without warrant. To be consulted is to be important. It signifies that Congress still matters - although (or rather, because) it balks at nothing it is asked to endorse.

This explains so much in the record of Congressional Democrats that voters find perverse. Members of Congress are intent above all on protecting the fragile illusion that they still wield power. To dare a showdown with the president on any issue of importance is to risk shattering the appearance of power and hence their self-image. Rather than try to check the president's aggrandizement of power, too many members of Congress merely seek to be co-opted.

But isn't their climbdown on FISA a profound humiliation? Sure, but I'd bet they can rationalize it away.

This report, about the Bush administration's arrogation of unchecked power over terrorist-suspects, nicely frames several related issues. First, it highlights how the federal courts, unlike Congress, have repeatedly rebuffed Bush's power grabs in obvious and principled fashion. While the administration was trying to monopolize certain powers that properly belong to the judiciary, it was not able to throw any sops in the direction of the courts. Naturally the courts resented the Executive's aggrandizement and saw nothing to gain by rolling over for the President.

The article also points out that the Bush administration sometimes refused to pull the rug out from under the courts in the tried and true way - by getting Congress to legalize whatever lawlessness it was engaged in. Here is an example of WH pigheadedness over the due process case of Yaser Hamdi from 2004.

Jack L. Goldsmith...[described] a White House meeting he attended... in which Paul D. Clement, of the solicitor general's office, warned that the administration might lose the case before the Supreme Court, despite its "solid legal arguments." Goldsmith said he suggested that the administration seek a congressional sign-off for the entire detention program, something that would make it harder for the court to strike down the program.

Goldsmith's view was supported by Clement, then-National Security Council lawyer Bellinger and Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes II -- but not, Goldsmith said, by David S. Addington, then legal counsel to Vice President Cheney.

"Why are you trying to give away the president's power?" Addington asked, according to Goldsmith, who explains that Addington thought it might suggest that the president could not act on his own.

Why concede in any way that the president cannot make something legal just by willing it so? That question has been the leitmotif of the multi-year quest by Addington and Cheney to create an all powerful Unitary Executive.

And it brings us back to what I presume is the primary rationalization among members of Congress for their cowardly FISA legislation. They can claim, almost with a straight face, to have won the larger constitutional struggle by tying the Executive down to an "oversight" process that involves both the Legislative and Judicial branches.

Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the bill "will prevent any repeat of warrantless surveillance undertaken by the president and will hold our government accountable for its actions, past and future, through strengthened court review and congressional oversight."

By a delusion such as Rockefeller's, the WH has conceded power by agreeing to consult very occasionally with a few representatives of the other branches about the warrantless wiretapping that it alone will direct. It is a delusion, and very much in line with the imperial Roman Senate's illusions of grandeur.

Of course it is a delusion, what could be clearer? For the US Congress is rushing once again to give the President everything he asked for, and more.

The proposal — particularly the immunity provision — represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute. “I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get,” said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.

As congress prepares to abdicate whatever powers it may have left to Bush, I want to discuss what happened the last time a great constitutional superpower followed their own unitary executive to autocracy and empire. Barack Obama even reminds me of a senator of that day, Marcus Tullius Cicero, whose dubious constitutional loyalties wavered between the forces of constitutionalism and extra-constitutionalism as the winds blew. Between 59 and 44 BC, the Roman Senate bowed to Julius Caesar as the U.S. Senate and House now bow to George Bush. Given, Julius Caesar was a competent leader and successful military strategist who did not have the intellect of an aristocratic C- student, but he also had little interest in following his republic's own constitution. As a result of the events which followed Caesar's dictatorship, 500 years of constitutional and republican development was lost. This legacy would only be rediscovered 1800 years later, by a group of wealthy land owners who despised the name "Caesar", and who sought to resurrect that ancient republic on their own shores.

Given the recent Supreme Court decision, upholding the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, I wanted to talk about the Roman origin of habeas corpus. If you ask almost anyone where habeas corpus originated from, they will tell you that it originated in the Magna Carta, which was signed by King John of England in 1215. The only problem with this answer is that it is not true. The right actually originated during the second year of the Roman Republic, during the consulship of Publius Valerius Publicola in 508 BC. The founding fathers so admired this Roman consul that when Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers, they signed the papers under the eudonym "Publius," in honor of Publius Valerius Publicola.

The primaries are over! Now is the time to solve the real problems as world leaders gather in Rome for the second day of talks on food price escalation and, with luck, to settle on a common strategy to deal with the crisis, the FAO has put a price on eradicating hunger: $30bn. Yep! That's for one year.

In his opening presentation, FAO director general Jacques Diouf pointed out that, in 2006, the total amount spent by nations on arms was $1200 bn. Here are some horrifying figures: just one country could waste as much as $100bn, and excess consumption contributing to global obesity amounted to $20bn.

Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, said the solution to the current world food crisis had to include financial support for African farmers.

Attending the conference in his new role as the chair of Agra, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, he said the African farmer was the only farmer in the world that still took all the risks, often operating without financial support, expertise or safety nets.

On July 10, Karl Rove will legally have to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to answer a subpoena regarding the Don Siegelman case, and the US Attorney issue. We know that Rove has nothing but contempt for the law and for the constitution. But this isn't because he is crazy. The law is only worth anything, so long as it is enforced. Karl Rove knows that if congress holds him in contempt, the "Justice" Department won't prosecute him. He knows that his party has so corrupted the courts that they won't hold him liable in a civil suit. And even if a district court did hold him liable, either the appeals court, or the Supreme Court, would uphold Rove's right to break the law. So after Rove breaks the law on July 10, congress will have a decision to make. They can hold him in contempt, or they can hold him in inherent contempt. If he is held in inherent contempt, he will be brought before congress by force, and tried by congress. This decision will not be unlike the decision that faced the Roman Senate in 27 BC. In 27 BC, the Roman Senate decided to abdicate all of its remaining powers to the executive. The result was the destruction of the Roman Republic, and the creation of the Roman Empire

In previous entries I've often cited many parallels between the evolution of American politics when compared to the history of Roman politics in the 1st and 2nd centuries. Obviously, one major reason that many commonalities can be found between the two is because the founders of our country consciously modeled our government on the Roman government, as it existed in that period.

Once upon a time, after nearly 200 years of Republican government, and 50 years of both declared and undeclared class warfare, a citizenship crisis, economic extortion,  corrupted elections, and sweeping military reforms, a Republic was attacked by a highly coordinated criminal organization, which was worldwide in scope, these individuals were non-state actors, and their pirates burned and sacked the primary economic center of the Republic, in very close proximity to the seat of the central government.

The party, and the world, have realized that Obama is our nominee. So now, the endless guessing game begins. What was it that ultimately defeated Hillary? Was it her decision to skip the caucuses? Was it her reckless spending in 2007? Was it her failure to take Obama seriously? Was it her decision to shift into general election mode early, and vote for war with Iran? There are many possibilities. However most, if not all, of these possibilities have one thing in common: hubris. From the days of Homer, to the days of Rome, hubris was well known in the ancient west. And hubris has always had the same ruinous consequence on those who displayed it.

Monday night, Rome elected Alemanno, a former neo-fascist youth leader, -- a few weeks after Silvio Berlusconi won the General Election, and secured a majoriy with an alliance with Umberto Bossi, the Northern League leader, a far-right party.

According to the Guardian:

On Monday night, the area around Rome's city hall rang to chants of "Duce! Duce!", the term adopted by Italy's dictator, Benito Mussolini, equivalent to the German "Führer". Supporters of the new mayor gave the fascist Roman straight-arm salutes.

I have taken a bit of a break from my Hadrian's forum series. I am currently putting together a series of Wikipedia entries on the Roman Constitution. I have separate sections for the Roman Kingdom, Republic and Empire, as well as the senate, legislative assemblies, and executive magistrates. When I was putting together one of these entries, I came upon a law that was passed in the year 69, called the Lex de imperio Vespasiani, or the "Law on Vespasian's Imperium". This law was passed to give the Emperor Vespasian the legal authority to be emperor. When I looked at it, I realized that it reads like the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF, passed right after 9/11) or the Iraq War Resolution.

A bitter (no pun intended) irony unfolded this morning when I got an e-mail from my cousin down in Sant'Agnello, Italy, near Naples and Sorrento, where she has been living for the past five years and where I had hoped to escape in exile should McCain win in November.

She gives me bad bad news; Well it turns out the Italian people, by a wide margin, made Italy a little less desirable for me.

More on the flip

"It's funny that people are freaking out about how the Jews are portrayed.  If you believe or even look at the Bible as a history book, it's not like Mel Gibson changed the story. The Jews were responsible for Christ's death."

So, according to the Gospel of a college-educated 27 year-old, I am guilty of deicide.  My friend probably would give me the benefit of the Statute of Limitations.  I was not quite so charitable with her ignorance.  As I informed her, the Jews did not kill Jesus but we do make wonderful scapegoats.  

No matter one’s faith persuasion or choosing not to have one at all, I suspect that we all live by stories. Even though I am neither Irish nor Roman Catholic, I think this is a story worth remembering. Today is St. Patrick’s Day. I would like to think that all those lining the parade routes in South Boston, New York City, Dublin and hundreds of other cities are doing so because they admire the way St. Patrick lived and want to imitate him, but I'm not sure that will be the case.  I sometimes wish that it was St. Patrick that I see on Wheaties cereal boxes or in the Nike ads, but perhaps its OK that he never has been and never will be.  It may be that my children will only know about St. Patrick if I tell them.

I was reading a new diary on the front page, where house republicans tried to intimidate some people who were going to testify against credit card companies. It occurred to me that during the Roman Republic, there was also a group of corrupt conservative republicans, who waged a war on the middle and working class. In high schools across the country, students are taught that it was Julius Caesar who brought down the Roman Republic. According to the conventional reasoning, Caesar seized a tyranny, and passed that power down to his heir, Gaius Octavian (Rome's first emperor, Augustus). The result, supposedly, was the transformation of a constitutional republic into an autocratic empire. That transformation occurred, there can be no doubt. But what caused it to occur? A line of reasoning has developed that Caesar's rise was a reaction to this transformation, not its cause. The thinking is that it was actually the corrupt conservative republican aristocracy in the senate which was responsible for that transformation. And it seems that our own corrupt conservative republican aristocracy is taking us down the same path.