Oct. 3, 2022
Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.
U.S. pours cold water on Ukraine’s NATO application as White House says it ‘should be taken up at a different time’
|
U.S. pours cold water on Ukraine’s NATO application as White House says it ‘should be taken up at a different time’
By Robert Romano
A rapid escalation of the war in Ukraine has followed Russia’s annexation of Donetsk, Luhansk and other cities across the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. The Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines were bombed, and now Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has requested fast-track approval of Ukraine’s application to be in NATO.
Under Article 10 of the NATO Treaty, “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”
In May, both Finland and Sweden moved to become latest members of the military alliance, which has already been approved by Canada, Iceland, Norway, Estonia, the UK, Albania, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland, Lithuania, Belgium, Romania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, France, Italy, the U.S., Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Slovakia.
Only Hungary and Turkey remain to approve both countries into the alliance, with the U.S. meeting most recently with leaders in Istanbul to move the treaty expansion along, where the White House issued a statement on Oct. 2 that the parties had “discussed… progress on NATO accession for Finland and Sweden.”
As for Ukraine, the U.S. appeared to pour cold water on Kiev’s request to join the alliance with White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan telling reporters on Sept. 30: "the process in Brussels should be taken up at a different time.”
That is, “at a different time” when 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory is not compromised by Russia. Not even President Joe Biden wants to start World War III anytime soon.
In a Feb. 22 televised speech justifying Russia’s actions in Ukraine, Putin plainly said “Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia's security,” calling for a halt to any further NATO expansion and that NATO return to its 1997 borders, citing the threat of intermediate range nuclear weapons, once governed by the now-abandoned 1987 INF Treaty, being able to hit Russia.
This of course calls into question whether the U.S. was aware of Zelensky’s intention to sign the application prior to him doing so. But it also appears to underscore the limits of the West’s intent to escalate the war — for now.
If Ukraine were to join the alliance, it would appear to immediately trigger war with Russia under Article 5 of the treaty, which states, “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them… will assist the Party or Parties so attacked…”
If that were to happen, Congress would not even need to authorize the use of military force in order to get into a wider war. Instead, the consequential vote would be on adding Ukraine into NATO via a Senate vote. From there, the treaty would appear to be automatically be triggered and NATO would be at war with Russia.
And yet, the House of Representatives would have no role in the process, even though the war-declaring power is a core Article I, Section 8 prerogative that is intended to avert this very dilemma. That is, all votes to insert America into a war must be done by the people’s representatives in both chambers of Congress, be presented to the President in the form of a bill and signed into law, or else the military action is not authorized.
When asked about the issue, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not exactly sound enthusiastic, stating on Sept. 30, “I would be for them having a security guarantee,” and falling short of endorsing Ukraine’s NATO bid.
As for an authorization to use force, there is such a bill, by U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) that so far has garnered zero cosponsors. And perhaps that is because either the White House and/or Congressional leadership have told members not to do anything with the legislation because it would be viewed as an escalation across the pond. Maybe it’s better that way.
Because it is an escalation. The real question should be what are the consequences of not fully discussing in Congress a war that has already begun, and which Congress is funding with billions of dollars. For now, we still appear to have one foot out the door in terms of being fully committed and, importantly, the American people’s representatives — who will be up for election in just a month — have not fully spoken under Article I about what our proper role in the region should be. Maybe someone should ask them before the election.
Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.
To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2022/
No Surprise: Government funded through Continuing Resolution through December 16
Oct. 3, 2022, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement on the passage of the continuing resolution through Dec. 16:
“To the surprise of no one, the House and Senate voted to fund the federal government through December 16th using the Continuing Resolution (CR) process.
“The swamp got their funding with extras added on for Ukraine which got an additional $12 billion , $1 billion additional aid for heating oil assistance and the Federal Emergency Management Agency getting an unreported amount of additional funding.
“The additional heating oil assistance is a desperate attempt by Democrats in Congress to transfer the high energy costs created by their failed policies to the taxpayers, offsetting some of these costs for northeastern homeowners who are amongst their most loyal voters.
“The next two months and a half months will be a funding battle between those who wish to rubber stamp Biden’s policies, including the hiring of 83,000 new IRS agents, the legacy regulations and Executive Orders designed to penalize those who chose not to get vaccinated, and whether those federal workers who defrauded the federal taxpayer by not logging in to their computers during the pandemic will be held accountable.
“An audit of federal workers at the Health and Human Services Department between March of 2020 and December 2020 showed that 25 percent of workers failed to log in a single time while ‘working’ remotely.
“Should the GOP prevail in the upcoming election, it would be an act of treason against those who voted for change if the December 16th funding date is met with a spending bill that permanently embeds the Biden agenda. Priority number one for congressional Republicans over the next two and half months should be extending the Continuing Resolution to March of 2023, when they can set the priorities and provide President Biden with a government funding bill that incorporates limited government priorities.”
To view online: https://getliberty.org/2022/
WSJ - John Roberts and Racial Gerrymandering
The Supreme Court weighs the Voting Rights Act in 2022 Alabama.
Oct. 2, 2022 | By The Editorial Board
Gerrymandering strictly by race is illegal, so how can it be required? According to Alabama, that’s the question Tuesday at the Supreme Court in Merrill v. Milligan, a case involving the state’s recent redrawing of its U.S. House map. The new districts resemble the status quo, with one majority-black seat in the southeast. The state says it used 2020 Census data merely to enact “race-neutral adjustments for small shifts in population.”
But Alabama has seven House seats, so one majority-black district comes out to 14%, while 26% of the state’s voting-age population is black. A federal court said in January that Alabama is required by the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to create a second majority-black district, which would be 29% representation. Is this the law, or is it another misguided effort in what Chief Justice John Roberts once called a “sordid business, this divvying us up by race”?
Section 2 of the VRA bans voting practices that aren’t “equally open” or that give racial minorities “less opportunity” to “elect representatives of their choice.” The High Court has blessed claims of vote dilution, with the operative precedent being Gingles (1986). It sets forth a multipart test: Is the minority group big and compact enough to be its own district? Is it politically cohesive? Is a VRA violation indicated by “the totality of the circumstances”?
On the other hand, Section 2 explicitly says it doesn’t create any sort of “right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.” More recent Supreme Court rulings have said gerrymandering by race is “odious,” and so strict scrutiny applies if it’s a “predominant” factor for mapmakers. Scylla, meet Charybdis.
Alabama argues that its critics were able to draw alternatives maps with two majority-black districts “only by starting with a ‘nonnegotiable’ racial target and backfilling with other redistricting criteria after that target had been hit.” These plans split the Gulf Coast region to combine black voters across the state.
In February, when the Justices stayed the lower court’s decision, Chief Justice Roberts dissented, saying it looked like a faithful application of Gingles. But he advocated hearing the case, since “Gingles and its progeny have engendered considerable disagreement and uncertainty.”
One thread in the Chief’s VRA jurisprudence is that it isn’t 1965 anymore. South Carolina has a black GOP Senator. Georgia has a black Democratic Senator, whose Republican challenger is also black. Reps. Steve Cohen and Rashida Tlaib aren’t black but win majority-black seats. The reverse, black Democrats in majority-white seats, happens, too, such as in Georgia’s 6th. What distinguishes a district favoring black voters, who happen to be Democrats, from a district favoring Democrats, who happen to be black?
Further, how much are these dynamics perpetuated if courts read the VRA as mandating racial quotas, more or less? “Few devices could be better designed to exacerbate racial tensions than the consciously segregated districting system currently being constructed in the name of the Voting Rights Act,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in 1994. He predicted it would “deepen racial divisions by destroying any need for voters or candidates to build bridges between racial groups or to form voting coalitions.” How right he has been.
The left hopes to bully the Chief Justice into leaving Gingles alone. Here’s how the Atlantic recently characterized his vote not to stay the lower-court ruling: “To resurrect a pungent phrase, his colleagues out-segged him.” Imagine the warped mentality in which it’s possible in 2022 to get “out-segged” by Clarence Thomas.The Democratic-media chorus is ready to shout that the Court’s ruling for Alabama in Merrill is the end of the VRA and democracy. It would in fact be a step away from the sordid business of proportional representation by race, which really is anti-democratic.
Appeared in the October 3, 2022, print edition as 'John Roberts and Racial Gerrymandering
No comments:
Post a Comment