Connect with us

Washington, D.C

Supporters press for a DC memorial to Thomas Paine, whose writings helped fuel the Revolutionary War – WTOP News

Published

on

Supporters press for a DC memorial to Thomas Paine, whose writings helped fuel the Revolutionary War – WTOP News


NEW YORK (AP) — Some 250 years after “Common Sense” helped inspire the 13 colonies to declare independence, Thomas Paine…

NEW YORK (AP) — Some 250 years after “Common Sense” helped inspire the 13 colonies to declare independence, Thomas Paine might receive a long-anticipated tribute from his adopted country.

A Paine memorial in Washington, D.C., authorized by a 2022 law, awaits approval from the U.S. Department of Interior. It would be the first landmark in the nation’s capital to be dedicated to one of the American Revolution’s most stirring, popular and quotable advocates — who also was one of the most intensely debated men of his time.

“He was a critical and singular voice,” said U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a sponsor of the bill that backed the memorial. He said Paine has long been “underrecognized and overlooked.”

Advertisement

Saturday marks the 250th anniversary of the publication of Paine’s “Common Sense,” among the first major milestones of a yearlong commemoration of the country’s founding and the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Paine supporters have waited decades for a memorial in the District of Columbia, and success is still not ensured: Federal memorials are initiated by Congress but usually built through private donations. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed bipartisan legislation for such a memorial, but the project was delayed, failed to attract adequate funding and was essentially forgotten by the mid-2000s.

The fate of the current legislation depends not just on financial support, but on President Donald Trump’s interior secretary, Doug Burgum.

In September 2024, the memorial was recommended by the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission for placement on the National Mall. Burgum needs to endorse the plan, which would be sent back to Congress for final enactment. If approved, the memorial would have a 2030 deadline for completion.

A spokesperson for the department declined comment when asked about the timing for a decision.

Advertisement

“We are staying optimistic because we feel that Thomas Paine is such an important figure in the founding of the United States of America,” said Margaret Downey, president of the Thomas Paine Memorial Association, which has a mission to establish a memorial in Washington.

A contentious legacy

Scholars note that well into the 20th century, federal honors for Paine would have been nearly impossible. While Paine first made his name through “Common Sense,” the latter part of his life was defined by another pamphlet, “The Age of Reason.”

Published in installments starting in 1794, it was a fierce attack against organized religion. Paine believed in God and a divinely created universe but accepted no single faith. He scorned what he described as the Bible’s “paltry stories” and said Christianity was “too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice.”

By the time of his death, in New York in 1809, he was estranged from friends and many of the surviving founders; only a handful of mourners attended his funeral. He has since been championed by everyone from labor leaders and communists to Thomas Edison, but presidents before Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s rarely quoted him. Theodore Roosevelt referred to him as a “filthy little atheist.”

There are Paine landmarks around the country, including a monument and museum in New Rochelle, New York, and statue in Morristown, New Jersey. But other communities have resisted. In 1955, Mayor Walter H. Reynolds of Providence, Rhode Island, rejected a proposed Paine statue, saying “he was and remains so controversial a character.”

Advertisement

Harvey J. Kaye, author of “Thomas Paine and the Promise of America,” cites the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980 as a surprising turning point. Reagan’s victory was widely seen as a triumph for the modern conservative movement, but Reagan alarmed some Republicans and pleased Paine admirers during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention when he quoted Paine’s famous call to action: “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”

Reagan helped make Paine palatable to both parties, Kaye said. When Congress approved a memorial in 1992, supporters ranged from a liberal giant, Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, to a right-wing hero, Republican Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina.

“Reagan opened the door,” Kaye said.

An immigrant who stoked the fire of revolution

Paine’s story is very much American. He was a self-educated immigrant from Britain who departed for the colonies with little money but with hopes for a better life.

He was born Thomas Pain in Thetford in 1737, some 90 miles outside of London (he added the “e” to his last name after arriving in America). Paine was on the move for much of his early life. He spent just a few years in school before leaving at age 13 to work as an apprentice for his father, a corset maker. He would change jobs often, from teaching at a private academy to working as a government excise officer to running a tobacco shop.

Advertisement

By the time he sailed to the New World in 1774, he was struggling with debt, had been married twice and had failed or made himself unwelcome in virtually every profession he entered. But Paine also had absorbed enough of London’s intellectual life to form radical ideas about government and religion and to meet Benjamin Franklin, who provided him a letter of introduction that helped him find work in Philadelphia as a contributor to The Pennsylvania Magazine.

The Revolutionary War began in April 1775 and pamphlets helped frame the arguments, much as social media posts do today. The Philadelphia-based statesman and physician Benjamin Rush was impressed enough with Paine to suggest that he put forth his own thoughts. Paine had wanted to call his pamphlet “Plain Truth,” but agreed to Rush’s idea: “Common Sense.”

Paine’s brief tract was credited to “an Englishman” and released on Jan. 10, 1776. Later expanded to 47 pages, it was a popular sensation. Historians differ over how many copies were sold, but “Common Sense” was widely shared, talked about and read aloud.

Paine’s urgent, accessible prose was credited for helping to shift public opinion from simply opposing British aggression to calling for a full break. His vision was radical, even compared to some of his fellow revolutionaries. In taking on the British and King George III, he did not just attack the actions of an individual king, but the very idea of hereditary rule and monarchy. He denounced both as “evil” and “exceedingly ridiculous.”

“Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived,” he stated.

Advertisement

A message that continues to resonate

Historian Eric Foner would write that Paine’s appeal lasted through “his impatience with the past, his critical stance toward existing institutions, his belief that men can shape their own destiny.” But “Common Sense” was despised by British loyalists and challenged by some American leaders.

John Adams would refer to Paine as a “star of disaster,” while Franklin worried about his “rude way of writing.” Meanwhile, George Washington valued “Common Sense” for its “sound doctrine” and ”unanswerable reasoning,” and Thomas Jefferson, soon to be the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, befriended Paine and later invited him to the White House when he was president.

Paine’s message continues to be invoked by those on both sides of the political divide.

In his 2025 year-end report on the federal judiciary, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts began by citing the anniversary of “Common Sense” and praising Paine for “shunning legalese” as he articulated that “government’s purpose is to serve the people.” Last year, passages from “Common Sense” appeared often during the nationwide “No Kings” rallies against Trump’s policies.

One demonstrator’s sign in Boston said, “No King! No Tyranny! It’s Common Sense.”

Advertisement

Copyright
© 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.



Source link

Washington, D.C

Fact Check Team: Iran conflict revives Washington fight over who can authorize US force

Published

on

Fact Check Team: Iran conflict revives Washington fight over who can authorize US force


As the war in Iran intensifies across the Middle East, a constitutional battle is unfolding in Washington over a fundamental question: Who has the authority to declare war, Congress or the president?

The debate focuses on the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law designed to prevent years-long military conflicts without congressional approval. Lawmakers passed the measure in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to reclaim authority they believed had drifted too far toward the executive branch.

What Is the War Powers Resolution?

The War Powers Resolution was intended to put limits on a president’s ability to send U.S. troops into combat without Congress signing off.

Advertisement

Under the law, a president can deploy forces into hostilities only if Congress has formally declared war, passed a specific authorization for the use of military force, or the U.S. has been attacked.

The resolution also sets strict deadlines.

The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities. From there, a 60-day clock begins. If Congress does not approve the military action within that time, troops must be withdrawn — though the law allows an additional 30-day wind-down period.

Some argue the law was crafted to prevent “never-ending wars.” While others say presidents from both parties have routinely stretched and sidestepped its requirements.

WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 14: Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) visits with Senate pages in the basement of the U.S. Capitol Police ahead of a vote on January 14, 2026 in Washington, DC. Republicans voted to block a Venezuela war powers resolution after receiving assurances from President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio of no U.S. forces remaining in Venezuela and pledges for congressional involvement in major future operations. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Advertisement

What Does the Constitution Say?

The War Powers Resolution is rooted directly in the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress — not the president — the power “to declare War.”

Article II, Section 2 names the president as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.

In simple terms, Congress decides whether the country goes to war. The president directs the military once it is engaged.

Advertisement

The framers intentionally split that authority. Their goal was to avoid concentrating too much war-making power in one person — likely a reaction to the monarchy they had just broken away from.

But how that balance plays out in real time is often a legal and political fight. At times, disputes over war powers have reached the courts, though Congress and the executive branch frequently resolve them through political pressure rather than judicial rulings.

A Pattern of Stretching the War Powers Resolution

Essentially, every president since 1973 has pushed the boundaries of the War Powers Resolution rather than fully complying with its original intent. As the Council on Foreign Relations explains, the resolution was designed to “provide presidents with the leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies” but also to **require termination of combat after 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes continuation.”

For example:

Advertisement
  • Ronald Reagan ordered the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 without prior congressional authorization, later reporting to Congress in a manner “consistent with” the resolution.
  • Bill Clinton directed the 1999 NATO air campaign in Kosovo after congressional authorization efforts failed, continuing U.S. engagement beyond the WPR’s typical 60-day reporting window.
  • Barack Obama oversaw U.S. participation in the 2011 Libya campaign, arguing that limited strikes did not trigger the full force of the WPR’s time limits.

In more recent years, Donald Trump’s administration has once again brought these issues to the forefront.

War Powers Arguments from the White House

The Trump administration’s principal legal rationale has centered on two points:

Short-term strikes or limited military actions do not always trigger the full 60-day clock under the War Powers Resolution, especially when described as defensive, limited in scope, or tied to national security emergencies rather than prolonged hostilities. In some cases, the White House relies on prior Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) or other statutory authorities rather than seeking new congressional approval.

Current Public Opinion on Iran Strikes

Public opinion reflects significant skepticism about the current U.S. military engagement with Iran. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that just 27% of Americans support the recent U.S. and allied strikes on Iran, while 43% disapprove and 29% remain uncertain.

Advertisement

Another national poll conducted by SSRS for CNN found that nearly 60% of U.S. citizens disapprove of the military actions, and a similar share said that President Trump should seek Congressional authorization for further action.

Beyond polling, internal deliberations in Congress have already begun. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have pushed for votes on war powers resolutions that would seek to limit or require authorization for further military action against Iran. Past attempts to pass similar restraints have failed, reflecting deep partisan divisions and the complexities of enforcing the War Powers Resolution.



Source link

Continue Reading

Washington, D.C

Students at Southeast charter school outperformed 75% of DC on citywide math test – WTOP News

Published

on

Students at Southeast charter school outperformed 75% of DC on citywide math test – WTOP News


Two years ago, leaders at Center City Public Charter School’s Congress Heights campus made a decision to offer more advanced math classes to some of their oldest students.

This page contains a video which is being blocked by your ad blocker.
In order to view the video you must disable your ad blocker.

Students at Southeast charter school outperformed 75% of DC on citywide math test

Two years ago, leaders at Center City Public Charter School’s Congress Heights campus in D.C. decided to offer more advanced math classes to some of their oldest students.

Advertisement

The choice was complicated, and some educators wondered whether the kids would be ready.

To prepare for the possible change, Principal Niya White and her team visited high schools, both nearby and farther away, to see how algebra was being taught.

In some classrooms, White would see former students sleeping in the back. They were bored or had already finished their work.

For White, that made the choice clear — in order to set students up for success, they needed to expand their offerings so kids felt challenged and engaged by the time they reached high school.

“I’m born and raised here,” White said. “I was given the option of whether to leave Southeast D.C., leave D.C., go off to do things and come back. There are a lot of folks and a lot of students or a lot of families that don’t ever get that option. They’ve got to have it.”

Advertisement

Now, the Southeast D.C. campus is offering pre-algebra to seventh graders and algebra to eighth graders. In the 2024-25 school year, 70% of eighth graders at the school either met or exceeded expectations on the citywide standardized math test.

Education news outlet The 74 first reported that’s a stronger mark than the 64% of eighth graders who met or exceeded expectations in Ward 3. Only one-fourth of all D.C. students did the same.

Jessi Mericola, who teaches seventh and eighth grade math, was one of the educators who considered whether students were ready to make such a significant leap.

Initially, half of the rising eighth graders did an accelerated seventh grade curriculum, and then attended summer school to finish the curriculum so they could take algebra in eighth grade.

This year, for the first time, all of seventh grade is being accelerated so next year, “all of our students will be doing algebra,” Mericola said.

Advertisement

“We found that if we tell them they’re ready for it, they believe you, and they want to meet that expectation,” Mericola said.

Each class has about 20 students, with the largest in the school at 26, she said. Classes are divided into sections. There’s an individual review on a recently learned concept, a small group review on something from earlier in the year and then a full group lesson.

Mericola co-teaches with a colleague, and even if a student is struggling to grasp an idea, “we come back and reteach things from before that maybe you missed it the first time, but you catch it the second time; and if you miss it the second time, you catch it the third time.”

It’s an approach, White said, comes from avoiding the assumption that “we can’t move a child forward because of something or one of the things they haven’t mastered yet.”

Eighth grader Kennedy Morse said math was a struggle before she got to the Congress Heights campus, but now, it’s become one of her strongest subjects.

Advertisement

She’s gained confidence from tutoring help and being able to ask questions without judgment.

“It was really shocking for me to be on a higher level,” Morse said. “It was hard. It was hard at first.”

Leonard White had a similar experience.

“I’m actually glad that they can believe in me to do the harder work in these classes,” White said.

While getting access to more advanced math classes at a younger age could help students take more rigorous courses in high school and college, Principal White said with any change, the focus is helping “show them all the possibilities and help them make the choice for themselves, versus it being forced upon them.”

Advertisement

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

© 2026 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Washington, D.C

Washington Commanders to pay DC $1M to resolve lawsuit over abusive workplace culture – WTOP News

Published

on

Washington Commanders to pay DC M to resolve lawsuit over abusive workplace culture – WTOP News


Brian Schwalb, the District’s attorney general praised the new ownership for rectifying the Commanders’ internal issues.

The former owners of the Washington Commanders will pay the District of Columbia $1 million to resolve a 2022 lawsuit that alleged the NFL franchise misled its fans regarding the team’s toxic and abusive workplace culture in order to protect the its brand.

Dan Snyder still owned the team at the time, and as D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb announced the settlement Monday, he praised the new owners for rectifying internal issues, including accusations of rampant sexual assault and harassment.

“The Commanders’ current owners have commendably opened a new chapter in the team’s history, committing to ensure all employees are protected from abuse and treated with dignity,” Schwalb said. “I want to thank the victims for coming forward to tell their stories — without their bravery, none of this would have come to light.”

Advertisement

A group led by Josh Harris purchased the Commanders in 2023 from Snyder, who had faced pressure to sell the team after a series of scandals and decades of perceivable mediocrity on the field.

Since then, new ownership has strengthened the team’s human resources department and implemented an anti-harassment policy and an investigation protocol for complaints of misconduct, Schwalb’s office said in a news release.

Under the agreement, the team will maintain those reforms, along with paying $1 million to D.C.

The NFL separately fined Snyder $60 million in 2023 after its own investigation concluded that he personally engaged in multiple forms of misconduct, including sexual harassment.

D.C.’s suit accused Snyder and the team of misleading the public about what they knew regarding the hostile work environment and Snyder’s role in creating it.

Advertisement

The Commanders and Snyder deny all the allegations and are not admitting wrongdoing by reaching a resolution, according to the terms of the settlement.

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

© 2026 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending