Tag Archives: government

Centralizing Power

Posted on by
Reply

China’s Communist Party granted President Xi Jinping authority on a par with Chairman Mao, revising its constitution to inscribe a political theory bearing Mr Xi’s name and endorse policies to make the nation a world power.

A weeklong party congress that ended Tuesday appeared to give Mr Xi unassailable power as he begins a second five-year term.

The move was unanimous, with not a single Party member out of 2,336 willing to vote no—an indication of Xi’s already present overweening power.

Adding to the significance of this power grab, only two other People’s Republic of China leaders have had their “thoughts” added to the nation’s constitution: Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, and both of these were dead before the CPC codified their “thoughts.”  Xi is alive and well and in a position to build on this move.

It seems as though the running dog is, indeed, the permanent leader of the pack.

A couple of questions come up in my pea brain: Will he get his own statute, too?  Does anyone in the Communist Party of China have the stones to ask Xi about his caldrons?

Rajoy vs Catalonia

Posted on by
Reply

Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy had and has an obligation to uphold the Spanish Constitution which, among other things, made the recent Catalan independence referendum illegal even to hold.  I’ve written elsewhere about what I think of his tactics in his enforcement campaign.

Whether Rajoy ordered his Policia Nacional and his Guardia Civil to engage in the violence they inflicted in Catalonia (nearly 900 Catalan casualties) or they acted on their own initiative, it’s hard to believe Rajoy was so stupid as to not know the violence would ensue when he ordered them in.

Now Rajoy has moved to invoke Article 155, which would allow him to seize control of the autonomous province from Madrid and among other things force new elections in Catalonia to get a new government, hopefully more…respectful…of Madrid imperatives.  The question is before the Spanish Senate as I write this piece on Saturday.

Two questions arise from Rajoy’s tactics (I hesitate to call the performance a strategy, anymore) so far:

1) What will Rajoy do if, as a result of his forced elections, Catalan separatist supporters are again elected to majorities in the Catalan government?

2) Is Rajoy prepared to send Spanish divisions into Catalonia to enforce Madrid’s rule there? Given the tactics he’s already chosen to enforce his will, that’s the choice this affair of his is coming down to.

Whichever way he chooses on the second question will end very badly for both Spain and Catalonia.  Choosing not to send his military across the frontier will amount to abject Spanish surrender to the separatists’ movement, however the latter might choose to play that out (perhaps negotiations would still be possible after Art 155 is officially invoked; the Catalans have been asking for talks all along, even though Rajoy has rejected them out of hand all along).  Choosing to send the military in will both magnify and solidify a political, cultural, and emotional split between Catalonia and Spain, regardless of how militarily successful Rajoy might be.

Thurgood Marshall’s Politics Deserve Respect?

Posted on by
Reply

Jason Riley certainly thought Justice Thurgood Marshall’s approach to it deserved respect.

One of the final scenes in “Marshall,” a new film about the early legal career of civil rights superstar Thurgood Marshall, shows the future Supreme Court justice in a train station in Mississippi. It’s 1941—peak Jim Crow —and a large “Whites Only” sign hangs above a water fountain beside him.

Marshall ignores the sign, takes a paper cup from the dispenser, and draws water from the fountain. An elderly black gentleman quietly watches him, in seeming awe of this defiant act. The two men exchange glances but no words as Marshall exits the station, yet his message to the older man is clear: don’t be afraid.

That much is to the good, most assuredly.

Unfortunately, the movie that Riley reviewed seems to have omitted another aspect of Marshall’s political behavior.  Marshall deliberately dragged politics into the courts.  Speaking at a traditional Supreme Court mid-term lunch for the Court’s clerks, for instance, Marshall said this, in all seriousness:

You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.

A judge ruling on any basis other than what the law says pulls what are solely political branch authorities into his court.  That’s utterly disrespectful.

Duties

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s decertification of Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA—because they’ve not been, and after two certs (six months) of data collection reasonably free from Obama administration bureaucrats’ fogging, the data are clear.

The Wall Street Journal headlined their piece earlier in the week that forecast that decision with this:

Trump Leaves Thorny Issues at GOP Lawmakers’ Doorstep

This is entirely appropriate. Our elected representatives should be handling the thorny issues instead of cowering under their desks avoiding “hard choices.”

On the question of what to do with the decert, House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R, TX) was paraphrased by the WSJ as saying [the emphasis is mine to highlight the WSJ‘s characterization of the timing]:

the question for lawmakers now is, “What would happen if we change our mind and void the deal, what would be the consequences?”

This is disingenuous. They’ve had that question before them since the JCPOA was signed. Of course they already know the answers, having kept plugging current affairs into the consideration as they’ve occurred these last couple of years.

Just like they’ve known for the last eight years what bills to pass that would repeal and replace Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.  Just like they’ve known for the last dozen years what bills to pass to reform our nation’s tax code and spending habits.

But there’s that duty avoidance in favor of ducking and covering again.

“New Commitment To, and Connection With, Each Other”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Ana Palacio, Spanish Foreign Minister at the turn of the century, disingenuously claims is needed in Spain following the recent Catalan separation referendum.

Spaniards need to work toward a new commitment to, and connection with, each other and the constitutional system.

But apparently Catalans are not Spaniards according to Palacio, since she also insists

“Dialogue”…is pointless given that Catalan secessionist authorities refuse to live up to or even recognize their responsibilities under the law.

This, in the face of Madrid’s conscious decision to try to suppress the referendum with violence—almost 900 Spanish Guardia– and Policia-inflicted casualties on unarmed Catalans—when, knowing full well that an unhindered referendum would have defeated separatism, Madrid could have arrested the ringleaders peacefully. In fine, Spanish law could have been enforced peacefully; Madrid chose violence.

Responsibilities under law, indeed.

Madrid doesn’t want to work toward a mutual connection; it wants only abject surrender and subjugation of an impertinent population.