Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord è un caso unico nella storia. Nato da nobile famiglia a metà del ‘700, ma zoppo, fu avviato alla carriera ecclesiastica. Non ne era proprio portato: gli piacevano potere, denaro e belle donne. Ma ad una famiglia potente ben poco può essere negato: nel 1789 è nominato vescovo. Venuta la rivoluzione, il nostro cacciò la tonaca alle ortiche e si dette alla politica, per la quale aveva una prodigiosa vocazione. In breve, scala tutta la gradinata del potere. Un tradimento fatto con perfetto tempismo si ritrovò dopo il colpo del 18 brumaio a fare il ministro degli esteri di Napoleone, non senza essersi portato dietro come souvenir tre milioni di franchi oro. Si defila a suo tempo da un Napoleone cadente e risorge come ministro degli esteri del ritornato Re Luigi XVIII. Sul letto di morte chiederà di essere reintegrato nella carica vescovile.
Insomma, Talleyrand era un virtuoso nella politica, specialmente quella estera.
* * * * * * *
Salvini è una grande personalità, ma talune sottili smaliziature tipiche della politica estera sembrerebbero essergli sfuggite.
I russi hanno una millenaria tradizione di ossequio ai trattati stipulati: sono usualmente di larghissime vedute, ma sanno essere ostinatamente fedeli a quanto sottoscritto, costi quel che costi. Nel novero mondiale, la Russia è il partner più affidabile che ci sia, ma esige un rapporto paritetico. Nelle trattative sanno essere spudoratamente chiari: conoscono bene gli abissi degli animi umani. Sono cresciuti storicamente con i mongoli ad est, gli svedesi al nord, i polacchi ad ovest ed i turki al sud. Poi, chiunque abbia visitato la provincia russa di inverno, ben comprende la loro mentalità, molto simile a quella dei naviganti: il gelo, il ghiaccio e la neve assomigliano ad un oceano ove villaggi e città sono le isole alle quali attraccare. Dirigersi verso un villaggio oppure una città ha come presupposto che vi si sia accolti, pena la morte.
* * * * * * *
I rapporti con le superpotenze dovrebbero sempre essere concordati in modo che non si prestino ad ambiguità alcuna.
Troppo spesso i capi di governo di piccole nazioni si dimenticano dello smisurato potere che le superpotenze traggono dall’avere servizi informativi allo stato dell’arte. Nei fatti, sanno tutto di tutti: di qui la necessità di giocare sempre a carte scoperte.
Ottimo l’aver ricevuto Mr Putin, ottimi i rapporti commerciali con la Cina, ottimi i viaggi a Washington: sono però tre direttrici divergenti.
A poche settimane di distanza dalla missione di Salvini negli Usa escono i nastri dell’incontro di Mosca. Lega scaricata dagli Usa o compromessa dalla Russia?
17 giugno. Matteo Salvini in missione negli Stati Uniti incontra il segretario di Stato Pompeo e il vicepresidente Pence, promettendo una svolta iper atlantista al governo e soprattutto alla politica estera del Carroccio. Tra le altre cose, il leader del Carroccio si allinea alla Casa Bianca su Venezuela, Iran, Cina e (almeno in parte) anche sulle sanzioni alla Russia.
4 luglio. Vladimir Putin in visita in Italia. Ricorda tramite interviste e dichiarazioni la sua vicinanza alla Lega, sostenendo allo stesso tempo che il sovranismo è morto. Ma secondo diverse fonti non tutto fila liscio.
10 luglio. Il sito d’informazione statunitense BuzzFeed pubblica alcune registrazioni e la trascrizione completa dell’incontro tra Gianluca Savoini, l'”ambasciatore” della Lega per i rapporti con la Russia, e altri italiani con uomini definiti “del Cremlino”.
La successione degli eventi è lì, sotto gli occhi, la mano (o l’orecchio) dietro la registrazione e la sua pubblicazione sono ancora nell’ombra. Ma è davvero difficile, difficilissimo, pensare che si tratti solo di un caso.
La sensazione, netta, è che la Lega sia finita in mezzo a un gioco più grande di lei in una storia dai contorni di spy story e messaggi più o meno criptati a livello geopolitico. Una storia che ricorda, pur con tutte le dovute differenze (e soprattutto ricordando che non esiste alcuna prova che del denaro sia effettivamente passato da Mosca alla Lega), quella dell’ex vicecancelliere austriaco Heinz-Christian Strache, costretto a dimettersi (con conseguente caduta del governo di Sebastian Kurz) a pochi giorni dalle elezioni europee dello scorso 26 maggio dopo la pubblicazione di un video che mostrava un suo incontro con una sedicente nipote di un oligarca vicino a Putin.
Una storia che magari non avrà conseguenze sul piano interno e sul governo Conte ma che ne avrà eccome sul ruolo internazionale della Lega e del suo leader Salvini.
Già, perché la pubblicazione di questa registrazione risalente all’ottobre 2018, proprio in questo momento, pregiudica i movimenti in materia di politica estera del Carroccio. Una politica estera, c’è da dire, spesso confusionaria. Prima era stato piazzato al Mise un convinto filocinese come Michele Geraci, fautore dell’accelerazione sul dossier Belt and Road, che ha portato all’adesione dell’Italia all’iniziativa strategica della Cina con la firma del memorandum alla presenza di Xi Jinping.
Subito dopo, anzi subito prima con una visita di Giancarlo Giorgetti negli States, la Lega aveva però cominciato a prendere le distanze dall’operazione di avvicinamento a Pechino, su imbeccata di Washington.
La missione di Salvini a Washington era servita proprio per rassicurare gli Usa e smarcarsi non solo dalla Cina ma anche dall’immagine di partito vicino (forse troppo) alla Russia di Vladimir Putin. Sembrava essere andata bene. Il vicepremier aveva espresso con forza una linea atlantista e trumpiana a livello geopolitico ed economico, tanto da assumere posizioni diverse da Mosca su alcuni dossier delicati come il Venezuela e l’Iran, oltre che sulla Cina.
Salvini sperava non solo di aver incassato l’appoggio di Donald Trump ma anche di potersi ergere a grande mediatore tra Washington e Mosca in un avvicinamento strategico auspicato da molti in funzione di contenimento dell’ascesa di Pechino.
Invece ecco gli audio di Savoini. Al di là della loro veridicità o meno, il segnale è chiaro. La Lega è stata sacrificata da Washington. O più probabilmente compromessa da Mosca.
Secondo diversi analisti, prima di “concedere” a Salvini il grado di partner strategico Trump vuole vedere le azioni concrete della Lega al governo su diversi dossier cari alla Casa Bianca, tra i quali il 5G e il riconoscimento di Guaidò. Il tutto a meno che non escano prove concrete del legame tra il Carroccio e Mosca, che dopo il Russiagate renderebbero di fatto “inutilizzabile” la Lega a Trump.
Dall’altra parte, la Russia di Putin potrebbe essere rimasta irritata dalla rotta sempre più atlantista di un partito che considera(va) amico. Ed ecco allora che le registrazioni, pubblicate dopo la visita di Putin a Roma, potrebbero essere anche interpretate come un soft (o sarebbe meglio dire hard) reminder: “Ricordatevi degli amici”.
Ma anche se non ci fossero dietro manine di Washington e Mosca e il timing fosse solo un caso, le conseguenze resterebbero le stesse. La svolta atlantista e trumpiana che Salvini voleva imporre alla sua Lega rischia di fallire. La stessa Russia avrà vita più difficile nei suoi rapporti con un’Unione europea che, se ce ne fosse stato bisogno, con l’atlantista pro Nato Ursula von der Leyen alla Commissione potrebbe assumere una posizione ancora più dura con Mosca con la benedizione dei paesi di Visegrad. E gli amici di Salvini a Visegrad, soprattutto i polacchi (ma non solo) ostili ai russi, potrebbero avere qualche imbarazzo a sviluppare legami con la Lega.
Insomma, una bella botta per una Lega che rischia davvero di restare un po’ più sola. E Salvini, se in un futuro più o meno prossimo vuole approdare a Palazzo Chigi, dovrà ricominciare tutto (o quasi) da capo sul fronte della sua politica estera.
Quando il dialogo politico illanguidisce ed alla fine si arena, quando la parte viscerale prende il sopravvento su quella razionale, quando gli interessi economici sono conflittuali ed apparentemente non risolvibili, ebbene, allora inizia a prender corpo l’idea di una secessione.
Tutti gli stati nazionali hanno una qualche clausola costituzionale che dichiara il territorio uno ed indivisibile. È stata la base giuridica della guerra di secessione del sud contro il nord, e gli Stati Uniti ricordano l’allora Presidente Lincoln come un secondo fondatore della Patria.
La reazione spagnola al tentativo separatistico della Catalogna è un altro chiaro esempio di codesto concetto.
Per contro, poche decine di anni or sono la Repubblica Ceka si è separata dalla Slovakia in modo amichevole, continuando a mantenere ottimi rapporti e, si direbbe, con vantaggio di ambedue le parti.
Tutta la dirigenza politica ed amministrativa della California professa la ideologia liberal, e si senta in particolare disagio al momento attuale con il resto degli Stati Uniti che non condivide tale credo religioso.
I giudici del 9th Circuito hanno ripetutamente cercato di bloccare gli ordini Esecutivi di Mr Trump e si sentono particolarmente minacciati dal fatto che ora la Suprema Corte abbia cinque membri nominati da presidenti repubblicani contro i quattro nominati da presidenti democratici. Non solo, ma proprio di questi tempi la Suprema Corte ha preso posizione sul Censu, sul Gerrymandering. La procura federale ha incriminato un giudice distrettuale liberal per aver ostacolato la giustizia, ponendolo nella situazione di rischiare venticinque anni di carcere.
Tutti gli elementi noti deporrebbero per un netto calo dell’influenza dei liberal democratici e nella sempre più ragionevolmente sicura rielezione di Mr Trump.
In questa situazione è del tutti sequenziale che la California inizi a pensare ad una secessione. Farla sarebbe cosa ben diversa, Spagna docet.
«Secession is extremely improbable»
«Americans have grown increasingly polarised in recent years»
«According to the Pew Research Center, median Republicans are more conservative than 97% of Democrats, while median Democrats are more liberal than 95% of Republicans.»
«We have to go back historically, to something like the 1890s post-Civil War period, to find politics in the US that are anywhere near as bitterly polarised as we have now»
«Polarisation in Congress is at levels we have not seen in more than 100 years»
«For the past few years, divides both within the state, and between California and the rest of the US, have sparked at least six initiatives aimed at breaking California into smaller states or cleaving it entirely from the rest of the country»
«A constitutional law denies states the right to secession, and there’s scant evidence that the majority of California’s citizens actually want to leave»
«Democrats might say ‘we’ve gotta keep California or we might be marginalised forever’»
«Following California’s peaceful secession, though, Democratic fears would come true»
«The balance of power in Congress would tip toward complete Republican control»
«California’s much more serious efforts to reduce the pace of climate change would be undone by the rest of the US»
«California’s secession might, however, trigger a snowballing of similar initiatives in other parts of the US. The north-east, for example, would become increasingly alienated in a Republican-dominated country with no hope of winning political representation»
* * * * * * *
La storia ci insegna che nessuna situazione politica è stabile nel tempo. Non solo. Riescono a resistere ben di più quelle strutture agili ed aperte alle mutazioni in ragione dei tempi, mentre tutte le situazioni dogmatiche sono alla fine corrose dall’azione del tempo, fino alla implosione.
Un chiaro esempio è l’attuale devoluzione dell’ideologia liberal.
Soltanto dieci anni or sono al solo accennarne si sarebbe stati etichettati come pazzi visionari.
In fondo, Lenin dice che il comunismo sarebbe stato eterno, Mussolini più modestamente parlava di era fascista, durata nei fatti circa venti anni, ed il Reich millenario è vissuto dal 1932 al 1945. Veramente poco per i tempi della storia.
Secession is extremely improbable. But looking at what could ensue if it happened underscores some fascinating truths about the US – and where power really lies.
Americans have grown increasingly polarised in recent years. According to the Pew Research Center, median Republicans are more conservative than 97% of Democrats, while median Democrats are more liberal than 95% of Republicans. By contrast, in 1994 those figures were just 64% and 70%, respectively. Some scholars argue that ideological tensions have never been greater in living memory.
“We have to go back historically, to something like the 1890s post-Civil War period, to find politics in the US that are anywhere near as bitterly polarised as we have now,” says Bernard Grofman, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine. “Polarisation in Congress is at levels we have not seen in more than 100 years.”
California is no exception. For the past few years, divides both within the state, and between California and the rest of the US, have sparked at least six initiatives aimed at breaking California into smaller states or cleaving it entirely from the rest of the country.
According to Monica Toft, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University in Boston, arguments in support of these plans include the belief that the federal government no longer represents California’s economic interests; that the state is so large that proper governance is only possible if applied across a smaller geographic scale; or that irreconcilable differences have emerged between what California and the rest of the US stand for.
To be clear, unless something drastically changes, California is not going to secede any time soon. A constitutional law denies states the right to secession, and there’s scant evidence that the majority of California’s citizens actually want to leave. A 2017 survey of 1,000 Californians conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, found that a bipartisan 68% opposed such initiatives.
Yet exploring what would happen should this improbable event come to pass is still worthwhile for the questions it raises about the precarious balance of power – and politics – in the US.
The possibility of violence, even formal war, is the first and most crucial question for hypothesising what would happen if California tried to leave. Another US civil war may sound unlikely, but consider that the southern US did not expect lasting conflict to ensue when it decided to secede from the north 157 years ago.
Civil war did break out, leading to the loss of some 620,000 American lives and shaking the country to its core. “It seems unfathomable that the US would have another war of secession, but I think if you talked to people in the mid-19th Century they would have said the same thing,” Toft says. “The US is not immune to this.”
Other splits throughout history sparked violence too. Pakistan responded with genocide and mass rape when Bangladesh decided to become a separate nation in 1971, while Eritrea’s War of Independence from Ethiopia dragged on for 30 years.
It doesn’t always play out this way; some countries have pulled off peaceful secessions. In 1993, in what is known as the Velvet Divorce, the Czech Republic split from Slovakia with no resulting bloodshed. And despite tough talk between the EU and UK, Brexit is proceeding peacefully.
Whether the US opted to try to forcibly prevent California from leaving would largely depend on who was leading the country at the time and how they felt about secession, says Stephen Saideman, an international affairs professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. “Republicans might actually say ‘good riddance’, whereas Democrats might say ‘we’ve gotta keep California or we might be marginalised forever’,” he says.
Unlike in the US Civil War, however, there is no fundamental issue like slavery to inflame the divide, and most scholars agree that there is just too much shared identity between California and the rest of the US to imagine a scenario in which war breaks out.
“Californians are not akin to the Kurds in Iraq, the Catalans in Spain or even the Scots and Irish in the UK,” says Brendan O’Leary, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “I cannot foresee generals from the Pentagon obeying orders to go occupy California by force.”
Following California’s peaceful secession, though, Democratic fears would come true. California is the largest state in the union by population, and its exit would radically shift the political playing field in the US. The balance of power in Congress would tip toward complete Republican control. Meanwhile, the loss of California’s electoral votes would leave little hope for the US to see another Democratic president in the near future.
“Politically, this would put Democrats in a deep, deep hole,” Saideman says. “They’ve depended on California since the early 1990s for having a chance to win presidential elections.”
In response to the red wave, remaining US Democratic representatives would likely shift their politics to the right. “If you no longer have California anchoring the Democratic Party positions, then that dramatically changes the center of gravity,” Grofman says. For Democrats, the most optimistic outcome for a US without California, he continues, would be a more centrist political arena – one akin to the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961), when bipartisan consensus allowed for major undertakings like the construction of the interstate highway system.
No matter how US politics shook out, however, losing California would deliver a significant economic blow to the newly diminished nation. California is the world’s fifth largest economy – bigger than that of the entire UK – grossing $2.7 trillion in 2017.
It also contributes more tax revenue to the US federal government than any other state, subsidising “all sorts of Republican states, for which it simply receives abuse in return”, O’Leary says.
How big the overall impact would be on the US economy would depend on whether leaders struck up free trade agreements or if they imposed tariffs and other trade barriers. No matter what, though, the US would not escape unscathed.
“The dollar would tank,” O’Leary says. “The euro and Chinese yuan could replace it as the global currency.”
The newly divided US would lose international footing and become more beholden to its allies, and some long-standing friendships would be tested. With the US leaning more strongly to the right, nations also run by right-leaning parties, such as Hungary and Russia, might become closer to the US. But relations between the US and Canada – which are generally better when both nations’ leaders sit on the same side of the political spectrum – would fray. So would those with Mexico as the increasingly right-wing US government shifted toward harder-line immigration policies.
California, on the other hand, would become an attractive new ally for those and other liberal countries. “Suddenly, instead of a bipolar system with the US and China, we’d see a multi-polar system with the US, China, California, India and so on,” Saideman says. “In international relations, multi-polar systems produce a lot more confusion because alliances matter a lot more.”
As California vied for a high standing in the international community, it would likely take a lead on key issues such as mitigating global warming. California’s progress, however, would be counterbalanced by the US’s continued backsliding, including its loosening of emissions and pollution standards, defunding of initiatives to develop sustainable energy and opening up of carbon-capturing wilderness areas for prospecting and development.
“California’s much more serious efforts to reduce the pace of climate change would be undone by the rest of the US,” Saideman says.
California could also be more attractive than the US to immigrants. The newly formed country would almost certainly continue to welcome overseas innovators to Silicon Valley and its space agency, but it might also relax policies for less skilled workers as well. “Given the sheer scale of Hispanic populations in California and the role of agriculture there, I can’t imagine that California would not wish to develop a new policy on the question of welcoming people from Central America and elsewhere,” O’Leary says.
On the other hand, while highly diverse southern California might look favourably on immigration, much more conservative northern California could be staunchly opposed. “If you look at maps of the last election, there are deep pockets of red and blue, and areas in between,” Toft says. “It’s not inevitable that California is liberal.”
Grofman adds that, as humans, we are naturally inclined to view the world as a zero-sum game. “People tend to believe that adding new people will simply divide the pie in more ways,” he says. “In other words, anything you get, I lose.”
Though economists have shown time and time again that growth creates positive-sum benefits, Californians, with their newly established borders, also may fall subject to an erroneous us-versus-them mentality. “The standard rule about immigration is that whoever is already there decides that the best thing that could possibly happen is to put up barriers to anyone else coming in,” Grofman says. There’s no guarantee that an independent California would be an exception.
Also contrary to what many might assume, California’s secession probably wouldn’t kick off a sudden mass immigration of US liberals into California and an exodus of Republicans out. “I’m an American in Canada, and after every election, everyone says ‘I’m moving to Canada’, but they don’t,” Saideman says. “If California seceded there would be some flow, but it wouldn’t be as dramatic as people think, and most of it would be driven by jobs.”
California’s secession might, however, trigger a snowballing of similar initiatives in other parts of the US. The north-east, for example, would become increasingly alienated in a Republican-dominated country with no hope of winning political representation. Therefore, states stretching north from Maryland to Maine and west to Pennsylvania may see secession as the only means of escaping a permanent Republican majority.
History has seen such dynamics play out. States such as Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova only seceded from the Soviet Union after the Baltic states led the way. “In this hypothetical situation, you can imagine folks in the north-east thinking that if D.C. allowed California to go scot-free, it would probably let them go, too,” says Saideman.
Following the secession of the north-east, Florida may opt to depart, too, as could parts of Texas. At that point, other states – many of which have the economic capacity and population size to become small countries of their own – may see little incentive to stick around. In other words, California’s secession could be the beginning of the end for the United States of America as we know it.
As Grofman says, “In a world in which California seceded, the most pessimistic scenario is further breakup of the US.”
Mentre gli Occidentali si baloccano con il ‘clima‘, l’abbandono del carbone entro il 2050, tutti presi a congratularsi gli uni con gli altri per le ferme prese di posizioni su problemi quali gli lgbt, i transessuali, le perversioni pedofiliche, se sia o meno congruente con il femminismo l’uso di tacchi 12, e tutti i media liberal si danno un gran da fare a dire tutto il male possibile di Mr Trump, quasi fosse lui il nemico da combattere, gli eventi proseguono il loro decorso.
Quelli’uomo che i liberal odiano perché omofobo, identitario, sovranista, recalcitrante ad assimilare il rule of law che assomma il credo liberal socialista, ha appena ricevuto dalla Russia la prima fornitura di Sistemi S-400, lo stato dell’arte nel settore della difesa aerea contro aeromobili e missili.
Volenti o nolenti però, si apre adesso un severo problema del settore meridionale della Nato, e proprio con la Turkia che ha il controllo dei Dardanelli.
L’Unione Europea è adesso compresa tra le basi russe di Kalinigrad e quelle turke di Murted. Forse, Frau Merkel potrebbe anche mobilitare il proprio esercito di frombolieri armati con le nuove catapulte che tirano massi anche a cinquecento metri. Ferma posizione delle front-hole tedesche: non gliela daremo più.
«Turkey plans to deploy the initial battery of S-400 air defence missiles, due to arrive from Russia this week, to Şanlıurfa province along the Syrian border, the Turkish pro-government Milli Gazete newspaper reported.
Following detailed field analyses, Turkey’s military decided to deploy the first battery of the Russian missile system to Şanlıurfa’s Birecik district, which is considered the midpoint of Turkey’s 910-km border with Syria, according to Milli Gazete. It is also near the Syrian village of Ashme, which is home to the tomb of Süleyman Shah, grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire.
Some analysts see this move from Turkey as aligned with its broader thinking on the S-400 deal. In an analysis for the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday, columnist Seth Franzman argued that Turkey’s S-400 purchase was less about defending itself than about Syria.
“Turkey wants the S-400 not because it needs it to defend its airspace but because it will give it leverage over Russia’s role in Syria,” Franzman wrote. “Russia is willing to concede some issues in northern Syria in return for closer cooperation with Turkey.”»
ANKARA, July 12 (Xinhua) — The first batch of Russian S-400 air defense systems was delivered in Turkish capital city of Ankara on Friday, the Turkish Defense Ministry said.
Within the purchase contract signed between Turkey and Russia, the first shipment of S-400 arrived at Murted Air Base, formerly called the Akinci Air Base, located in northeastern suburb of Ankara, the ministry said in a written statement.
In December 2017, Ankara and Moscow signed a 2.5-billion-U.S.-dollar agreement for two batteries of the S-400 system, Russia’s most advanced long-range anti-aircraft missile system. Turkey is the first NATO member country to acquire the system. Enditem
«The Trump administration on Friday refused to back down over its bid to put a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 U.S. census, meaning a court case will move forward over whether officials were motivated by racial bias in seeking to add it.»
«President Donald Trump said on Friday that he is considering an executive order to add a contentious question about citizenship to the 2020 U.S. Census, after a U.S. Supreme Court blocked his initial effort to include it.»
«With a court deadline looming, the Trump administration is looking at “every option” as it seeks to add a contentious citizenship question to the 2020 census, a White House spokesman said on Thursday.»
«U.S. President Donald Trump is considering issuing an executive order on including a citizenship question in the U.S. census, Axios reported on Thursday.
“The administration is considering the appropriateness of an executive order that would address the constitutional need for the citizenship question to be included in the 2020 census,” the news outlet reported a senior legal source as saying»
«President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he was moving ahead with adding a contentious citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. census in a dramatic reversal after his own administration including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced a day earlier that the plan had been dropped.»
«The Justice Department announced Sunday night a new legal team will take over the Trump administration’s fight to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
The department’s spokesperson said in a statement that the DOJ is “shifting these matters to a new team of Civil Division lawyers” and it will be revealed in filings Monday.
The spokesperson did not give a reason for the change. Officials within the Civil Division’s Federal Programs Branch had been lead on the census case up until now, but they are being replaced by a combination of career and political officials from the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch, a Justice official said.»
«In a surprising move, lawyers from the Justice Department’s Consumer Protection Branch are taking over the census litigation from a DOJ team that specializes in cases against agencies.
The legal fight over the Trump administration’s effort to put a citizenship question on the 2020 Census took another surprising turn Monday, as the Justice Department revealed the new team of lawyers suddenly being subbed in.
The staffing change represents the latest twist since the administration revealed on July 3 that it was still looking for ways to include the citizenship question — notwithstanding statements just a day earlier by the Justice Department and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that the administration was dropping the question.»
«I russi hanno un segreto che nessuno è mai riuscito a violare. Come siano riusciti a concepire, progettare, costruire e rendere operativi un così grande numero di sistemi missilistici allo stato dell’arte ed il tutto in così poco tempo ed infine a costi irrisori»
Nelle abili mani di Mr Putin il sistema di missili anti oggetti volanti S-400 sta transitando da arma temibile a strumento diplomatico. Come arma, l’S-400 sarebbe in grado di intercettare ed abbattere aerei, droni, e missile anche ipersonici con una portata riferita di circa 400 km. Come strumento diplomatico è un mezzo molto utile per gratificare i paesi amici e per stuzzicare l’amicizia degli incerti. Poi, dotarsi di S-400 conferisce allo stato possessore una supremazia locoregionale nei confronti dei paesi viciniori.
Questi sistemi di arma erano una volta appannaggio dei soli Stati Uniti, che li avevano concessi a terzi con grande morigeratezza. Adesso la concorrenza russa inizia a farsi sentire pesantemente.
Il problema si sposta quindi da quello strettamente militare a quello politico: i potenziali acquirenti vogliono rapporti politici paritetici e tollerano ben pochi condizionamenti. I russi faranno pur sempre un’offerta in briciolo più conveniente di quella americana.
«The U.S. has reportedly offered India the MIM-104F Patriot (PAC-3) surface-to-air missile defense system and the Terminal high Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in lieu of the S-400»
«A senior U.S. diplomat in a recent congressional testimony expressed deep concerns over India’s decision to procure five squadrons of Russian-made Almaz-Antei S-400 Triumf air defense systems (NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler) for service in the Indian Air Force (IAF).»
«U.S. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Alice Wells said in an official testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on June 13 that the purchase of the S-400 defense systems could limit burgeoning India-U.S. military relations»
«At a certain point, a strategic choice has to be made about partnerships and a strategic choice about what weapons systems and platforms a country is going to adopt»
«India and Russia signed a $5 billion contract for the procurement of five S-400 squadrons during last year’s annual bilateral summit held in New Delhi in early October. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin presided over the signing ceremony. The first S-400 squadron is expected to be stood up by the fall of 2020»
«The Modi government has persisted in its decision to purchase the Russian-made S-400s despite strong opposition from the United States and the possible imposition of economic sanctions on India under U.S. legislation known as the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).»
* * * * * * *
I tempi stanno mutando rapidamente.
Se negli anni sessanta gli Stati Uniti erano potenza militare mondiale egemone e si spartivano tranquillamente con la Unione Sovietica le reciproche sfere di influenza, la situazione attuale è mutata.
Non soltanto vi sono ora tre superpotenze atomiche, ma la forza politica, sociale, culturale, economica e militare dell’America sta deperendo: è ancora molto forte, sicuramente sì, ma non più egemone.
Inoltre gli Stati Uniti sono dilaniati da una furibonda guerra civile con la quale i liberal democratici cercano in ogni modo e maniera di distruggere la persona fisica del presidente Trump, reo di non condividere i loro alti ideali.
Questa lotta intestina danneggia in ultima analisi proprio gli Stati Uniti, con grande gioia di Mr Xi e di Mr Putin.
A senior U.S. diplomat in a recent congressional testimony expressed deep concerns over India’s decision to procure five squadrons of Russian-made Almaz-Antei S-400 Triumf air defense systems (NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler) for service in the Indian Air Force (IAF).
U.S. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Alice Wells said in an official testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on June 13 that the purchase of the S-400 defense systems could limit burgeoning India-U.S. military relations.
The induction of the new long-range air defense systems “effectively could limit India’s ability to increase our own interoperability,” according to Wells, adding that the United States has “serious concerns” about the long-term strategic implications of the purchase for U.S.-India ties.
“At a certain point, a strategic choice has to be made about partnerships and a strategic choice about what weapons systems and platforms a country is going to adopt,” Wells said.
India and Russia signed a $5 billion contract for the procurement of five S-400 squadrons during last year’s annual bilateral summit held in New Delhi in early October. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin presided over the signing ceremony. The first S-400 squadron is expected to be stood up by the fall of 2020.
The Modi government has persisted in its decision to purchase the Russian-made S-400s despite strong opposition from the United States and the possible imposition of economic sanctions on India under U.S. legislation known as the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). The legislation seeks to economically and financially punish countries engaging in “significant transactions”–defined as any deals above $15 million–with the Russian state-owned defense industry.
While the Trump administration has been given authority under the 2019 U.S. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to waive sanctions in special cases it is far from clear whether India would be able to obtain exempt status. For one thing, sanction waivers have originally been reserved for cases of Soviet-era hardware costing less that $15 million and not for modern and more expensive platforms like the S-400.
“There is no blanket waiver, or a country waiver, when it comes to S-400, Wells cautioned. “We have serious concerns about a possible S-400 purchase, and we are continuing our conversations on how the United States or other defense providers could assist India.”
Notably, in September 2008, the United States imposed sanctions on the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Equipment Development Department (EDD) for China’s induction of S-400 systems and Sukhoi Su-35S (NATO reporting name: Flanker-E) fourth generation, twin-engine, multirole fighter aircraft.
“Under the Trump administration, we’ve been very clear that we’re ready to help meet India’s defense needs and we are seeking a very different kind of defense partnership building on the ‘Major Defense Partner’ designation that India has received from Congress,” Wells noted.
The U.S. has reportedly offered India the MIM-104F Patriot (PAC-3) surface-to-air missile defense system and the Terminal high Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in lieu of the S-400.
Wells testimony comes ahead of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit to India later this month.
Il problema è di non poco conto. Nel caso che una agenzia si sia dotata di un regolamento scritto in modo tale da destare leciti dubbi interpretativi a chi spetta la competenza di chiarire il reale significato? Alla stessa agenzia ovvero al giudice?
«The question in Kisor is whether the Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), decisions holding that courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation»
«This is generally referred to as “Auer deference.”»
«Under Auer and Seminole Rock, responsibility for construing and applying an ambiguous regulation rests with the agency that promulgated it, so long as the agency’s interpretation is reasonable»
«In recent years, a number of Justices, as well as legal scholars, have criticized Auer deference as inconsistent with both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and separation of powers principles»
«More broadly, critics of Auer deference contend that allowing agencies to determine the meaning of ambiguous regulations usurps the core responsibility assigned to courts by Article III of the Constitution»
«The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument March 27 in what could be one of the most important administrative law cases to come before the Court in many years: Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15. The question in Kisor is whether the Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), decisions holding that courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation. This is generally referred to as “Auer deference.”
Kisor raises questions about the respective responsibilities of courts and administrative agencies. It is fundamental that courts have the responsibility to say what the law is, but in administrative law, agencies have the responsibility to carry out their statutory mandates, including applying their own regulations in a manner that furthers that responsibility. Under Auer and Seminole Rock, responsibility for construing and applying an ambiguous regulation rests with the agency that promulgated it, so long as the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. In recent years, a number of Justices, as well as legal scholars, have criticized Auer deference as inconsistent with both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and separation of powers principles. Those critics note that the APA gives agency rules binding effect only if they go through notice-and-comment rulemaking, whereas Auer deference allows agencies to make legally binding interpretive decisions without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The critics also contend that section 706 of the APA, which governs judicial review of agency action, gives the reviewing court and not the agency authority to determine the meaning of an agency rule. More broadly, critics of Auer deference contend that allowing agencies to determine the meaning of ambiguous regulations usurps the core responsibility assigned to courts by Article III of the Constitution.
In Kisor, the petitioner (Kisor) adopts these and other related criticisms, and contends that Auer and Seminole Rock should be overruled, which would leave courts to interpret ambiguous agency regulations without deference to the agency’s construction. Notably, respondent Wilkie, the secretary of Veterans Affairs, represented by the solicitor general, acknowledges various problems with Auer deference – both in his brief and at argument. But Wilkie contends only that resort to Auer deference should be narrowed, not eliminated altogether. He argues that overruling Auer and Seminole Rock would call into question hundreds of court decisions that deferred to, and thus adopted, agency interpretations of ambiguous regulations. Wilkie also contends that Auer deference is appropriate in some limited contexts, such as where scientific or other highly specialized technical expertise is necessary to properly apply an agency regulation.»
«Petitioner James Kisor, a Vietnam War veteran, first sought disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 1982, alleging that he had developed post-traumatic stress disorder from his military service. The agency denied his initial request, but in 2006,Kisor moved to reopen his claim. The VA this time agreed he was eligible for benefits, but it granted those benefits only from the date of his motion to reopen, not (as Kisor had requested) from the date of his first application. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals—a part of the VA—affirmed that retroactivity decision, based on its interpretation of an agency rule governing such claims. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed.
The Federal Circuit also affirmed, but it did so by applying a doctrine called Auer (or sometimes, Seminole Rock) deference. See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452; Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410. Under that doctrine, this Court has long deferred to an agency’s reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations. The Court of Appeals concluded that the VA regulation at issue was ambiguous, and it therefore deferred to the Board’s interpretation of the rule. Kisor now asks the Court to overrule Auer, as well as its predecessor Seminole Rock, discarding the deference those decisions give to agencies.
Held: The judgment is vacated and remanded.»
«This Court’s deference doctrine is rooted in a presumption that Congress intended for courts to defer to agencies when they interpret their own ambiguous rules. The Court adopts that presumption for a set of reasons related to the comparative attributes of courts and agencies in answering interpretive questions. But when the reasons for the presumption do not hold up, or when countervailing reasons outweigh them, courts should not give deference to an agency’s reading. The Court has thus cabined Auer’s scope in varied and critical ways.»
«First and foremost, a court should not afford Auer deference unless, after exhausting all the “traditional tools” of construction, Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843, n. 9, the regulation is genuinely ambiguous. A court must carefully consider the text, structure, history, and purpose of a regulation before resorting to deference. If genuine ambiguity remains, the agency’s reading must still fall “within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.”»
«Stare decisis cuts strongly against overruling Auer»
Stare decisis significa che il giudice deve attentamente ricercare le sentenze pregresse ed applicarle, massimamente quando queste siano state emesse da giudici a livello superiore. Questa interpretazione blocca sul nascere tutta la giurisprudenza ‘creativa’.
Degno di nota è l’introduzione di un concetto a prima vista banale.
“reasonable reading“: è un richiamo ad utilizzare quello che un tempo era chiamato sano buon senso.
Il senatore Bernie Sanders, 78enne, nominalmente indipendente ma forse più vicino alla ideologia comunista che a quella liberal democratica, si propone di correre per la campagna elettorale presidenziale del 2020.
Di questi tempi ha lanciato una proposta sulla quale sarebbe da pensare a lungo prima di cassarla oppure approvarla: sarebbe necessario fare molto bene i conti, dato l’impegno finanziario necessario.
Mr Sanders constata come negli Stati Uniti vi siano circa 42 milioni di persone, ex-studenti universitari, oberati dai debiti contratti per conseguire il diploma. La cifra totale sarebbe circa 1.6 trilioni Usd, che salirebbero a circa due trilioni tenendo conto delle spese collegate. Propone di cancellare tali debiti.
Il nodo reale sarebbe che i giovani laureati trovano in media lavoro, ma con stipendi troppo bassi per poter estinguere i debiti contratti.
Si pongono numerosi quesiti.
In primo luogo, dove e come trovare la copertura per questa cifra davvero immensa. Sono emerse alcune proposte, ma nessuna permetterebbe la copertura totale dell’impegno di spesa.
In secondo luogo, data l’entità della somma necessaria, ci si domanda se questa sia effettivamente una priorità.
In terzo luogo, l’annullamento dei debiti farebbe riversare simultaneamente nel sistema economico americano una liquidità di entità tale da poter anche destabilizzare l’intero sistema.
In quarto luogo, questo provvedimento andrebbe a beneficio della classe media, che negli ultimi decenni è stata caricata di tasse.
* * * * * * *
Sarebbe una proposta da valutare con cura ma al di là delle questioni di propaganda elettorale.
Magari, già il dimezzamento dei debiti universitari ridurrebbe l’impegno di spesa, rendendolo più fattibile, e potrebbe generare lo stesso un indotto proficuo.
Però, dal nostro sommesso punto di vista, senza uno studio econometrico bipartisan che analizzi numericamente tutte le possibili soluzioni, potrebbe essere proficuo il non argomentare ulteriormente con le sole parole.
A latere, ma non meno importante, sarebbe il chiarimento del problema giuridico. Gli ex studenti sono infatti persone fisiche che hanno volontariamente contratto dei debiti, mentre Mr Saunders invoca un intervento con denaro pubblico.
Da ultimo, ma non per ultimo, resterebbe il problema del fatto che il conseguimento della laurea non comporta di norma l’accesso a zone stipendiali tali da poter rifondere il debito contratto, anche per la crescente ressa verso facoltà senza sbocchi lavorativi.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Monday will propose legislation canceling all $1.6 trillion worth of U.S. student debt, according to a report.
The 2020 White House contender will unveil the bill alongside Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), per the Washington Post. The plan goes further than a signature proposal by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) as the two jockey for support from the party’s progressive base in the Democrat presidential primary.
Sanders’ effort on student loans, entitled the College For All Act, would cancel $1.6 trillion of debt, claiming to save the average borrower roughly $3,000 a year. It is estimated to cost a staggering $2 trillion and be paid for by a series of “Wall Street” taxes on such things as stock trades, bonds, and derivatives, according to the proposal.
Warren’s plan, which she has suggested in a Medium post, will be introduced as legislation, would be paid for by imposing a 2 percent fee on fortunes greater than $50 million, a wealth tax designed to target the nation’s top 0.1 percent of households. Warren projects the levy would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years, enough to pay for a universal child-care plan, free tuition at public colleges and universities, and student loan debt forgiveness for an estimated 42 million Americans — with revenue left over.
By forgiving all student debts, Sanders said the proposal addresses an economic burden for 45 million Americans. The key difference is that Warren’s plan considers the income of the borrowers, negating $50,000 in debt for those earning less than $100,000 per year and affecting an estimated 42 million people in the U.S.
“This is truly a revolutionary proposal,” Sanders said in a statement to the Post. “In a generation hard hit by the Wall Street crash of 2008, it forgives all student debt and ends the absurdity of sentencing an entire generation to a lifetime of debt for the ‘crime’ of getting a college education.”
Negli arsenali bellici convivono armi da attacco e da difesa. Si alternano periodi nei quali un sistema di difesa sia più potente di quelli da attacco, e viceversa.
Nella prima metà dell’ottocento, il cannone caricato a mitraglia era un’arma di attacco, ma anche di difesa, ovviamente, che imperava sovrano. Con la seconda metà dell’ottocento comparvero i fucili a retrocarica e le prime mitragliatrici.
I diari e le relazioni dell’allora capitano Hofmann dal fronte nippo-russo nel 1905 furono sottostimati dallo stato maggiore tedesco: descrivevano gli effetti devastanti ottenuti da nidi di mitragliatrici con gli assalti della fanteria. La Germania entrò in guerra, WW1, con 12,000 mitragliatrici, portate in poco meno di sei mesi ad oltre 100,000: avevano imparato rapidamente. Nessuna fanteria era in grado di superare gli sbarramenti delle mitragliatrici.
Dobbiamo alla energia di sir Winston Churchill, l’aver patrocinato lo sviluppo del carro armato inglese, che segnalò le sue potenzialità alla battaglia di Cambrai nel dicembre 1917. Nel 1918 fu l’elemento che consentì lo sfondamento dell’8 agosto.
La seconda guerra mondiale segnò in campo navale il tramonto delle corazzate a favore delle portaerei, mentre l’aviazione divenne arma sovrana.
* * * * * * *
Dotata di portaerei, nel tempo a propulsione nucleare, gli Stati Uniti divennero militarmente egemoni a livello globale.
Negli ultimi due decenni molte nazioni iniziarono a progettare e costruire sistemi missilistici capaci di identificare ed abbattere gli aeroplani, individuare, colpire ed affondare le portaerei.
Marchingegni molto costosi, quali gli aerei da caccia oppure le portaerei potevano essere neutralizzati da un razzetto del costo di poche decine di migliaia di dollari.
Aerei e navi furono dotate di armamenti anti – missile, ma almeno al momento attuale non sono in grado di bloccare un attacco ben coordinato.
La progettazione e la costruzione di missili antiaerei ed antinave richiede personale altamente qualificato ed un know-how per nulla improvvisabile. Le tre superpotenze ne hanno pieni gli arsenali.
Tuttavia anche nazioni piccole e non particolarmente ricche hanno cercato di dotarsi di sofisticate armi anti-aeree, sia acquistando quelle che le superpotenze erano disposte a vendere, sia progettandole e costruendole in proprio.
L’Iran è una di queste e, si direbbe, ha lavorato particolarmente bene.
«Once the dust cleared, it turned out that one of the enduring lessons from the past week occurred at about 22,000 feet»
«The Iranian downing of an RQ-4A Global Hawk on Thursday is thought to have been the first time one of the Pentagon’s surveillance workhorses has been shot out of the sky. Aside from the fact the incident nearly risked taking the United States and Iran to war for a few hours, it was also stark evidence of an escalation in Tehran’s military capabilities»
«They work …. The incident highlights that when the Iranians really make investment, it can really count …. We knew that with ballistic missiles, but it appears the case with air defenses too»
«The RQ-4A isn’t a clay pigeon. At $110 million each, the Global Hawk needs three people to remotely pilot it and its sensors. Wider in wingspan than a Boeing 737, it has a Rolls Royce engine moving it along at around 500 miles per hour as it hoovers up signals and images normally at 65,000 feet to keep out of the way of surface-to-air missiles. Even if they get too close, it has a radar-warning receiver, a jamming system and releases a decoy, towed behind it»
«But its destruction is a sign of Iran’s quiet focus»
«A few years ago this would have been a surprise, but now their new air defense gear looks a lot more impressive
«The IRGC said it used a “3rd of Khordad” surface-to-air missile system, images of which have been circulating now on social media as a symbol of Iranian prowess against the staggering unmanned technology the Americans unleash in the stratosphere every day»
«The Khordad 3 was first unveiled in 2014, has a range of up to 75 kilometers, and can hit as far up as 30 kilometers»
* * * * * * *
L’epoca in cui i droni da 100 milioni potevano volare sicuri è finita.
Ma non ci si faccia soverchie illusioni. Lo stesso ragionamento vale anche per aerei da caccia e cacciabombardieri.
L’America è adesso di fronte ad un dilemma: contro stati quali l’Iran potrebbe sicuramente vincere una guerra nucleare, ma da un conflitto combattuto con armi locoregionali avrebbe un gran filo da torcere.
“They work,” said Jeremy Binnie, Middle East and North Africa editor at Jane’s Defence Weekly, of Iran’s air defenses. The incident “highlights that when the Iranians really make investment, it can really count,” he told CNN.
“We knew that with ballistic missiles, but it appears the case with air defenses too.”
This image released by the U.S. military’s Central Command shows what it describes as the flight path and the site where Iran shot down a US drone in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday, June 20, 2019.
The RQ-4A isn’t a clay pigeon. At $110 million each, the Global Hawk needs three people to remotely pilot it and its sensors. Wider in wingspan than a Boeing 737, it has a Rolls Royce engine moving it along at around 500 miles per hour as it hoovers up signals and images normally at 65,000 feet to keep out of the way of surface-to-air missiles. Even if they get too close, it has a radar-warning receiver, a jamming system and releases a decoy, towed behind it.
But its destruction is a sign of Iran’s quiet focus. Binnie pointed out the size of the aircraft makes it “not a tough target in that respect”, he said. “A few years ago this would have been a surprise, but now their new air defense gear looks a lot more impressive.”
While America’s military is by no means threatened in the long term by Iran, instances like the downing of the drone show that Tehran can sometimes have an outsized effect with narrowly-focused efforts, and is an adversary certainly capable of keeping its opponents off balance. The US would win any conventional conflict in the short term, but should be wary that Iranian ingenuity (or deviousness, if you’re in Washington) will stop any conflict from being a “cakewalk.”
Despite the dispute over precisely where it happened, there’s no doubt the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps managed to destroy one at 4:05 a.m. on June 19. The US military has released video to support its claim that it happened 34 kilometers from the nearest Iranian land mass, and showed a flight path that suggests the spy drone never entered Iranian territory. Conversely, Iranian Foreign Minister Javid Zarif tweeted coordinates for the attack that put it well inside Iranian territory — near the city of Kouh-e Mobarak.
The IRGC said it used a “3rd of Khordad” surface-to-air missile system, images of which have been circulating now on social media as a symbol of Iranian prowess against the staggering unmanned technology the Americans unleash in the stratosphere every day.
The Khordad 3 was first unveiled in 2014, has a range of up to 75 kilometers, and can hit as far up as 30 kilometers, Iranian state-backed media has said. Janes concluded the strike was likely from a mobile vehicle, given the US contention the missile was launched from 70 kilometers away, and there is no Iranian facility matching that location. In short: Tehran took out a US spy drone from the back of a fancy truck.
While the US has massively improved its drone fleet since the Global Hawk first came to the Navy 13 years ago, with the MQ-4C Triton about to join service, Iran also has more advanced missiles than the one that took down the drone last week.
Ten days before the incident, Iran unveiled an upgrade which has nearly double the range and is also homegrown — the product of a series of reverse-engineering feats and technology purloined over the years by the sanctions-strapped country.
Binnie said the Iranians had either bought or developed radar technology that had helped them improve targeting at a distance. “We do not really understand how these guidance systems are working,” he said.
The MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system completes its inaugural cross-country ferry flight at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.
Binnie added that the angle of attack of the missile seemed to suggest it had approached the drone from the west, rather than chasing it from behind, suggesting it may have been relatively efficiently guided towards the drone by its launcher.
This isn’t the first time Iran has hit US technology. It took down a RQ-170 stealth drone in 2011 and reportedly reverse-engineered it to create its own variants from the wreckage.
There didn’t appear to be much left of the RQ-4A to pore over, but the interception at 22,000 feet belies a nation, in the words of President Trump, “going through hell.”
It was just one very expensive pilotless drone, but its downing nearly took the US to war in the region yet again, exposing just how important these flashes of the unexpected are.
«A panel of federal judges on Thursday ordered Michigan’s Republican-controlled legislature to redraw nearly three dozen state and U.S. congressional districts, ruling that the existing lines illegally dilute the power of Democratic voters»
«If legislators fail to do so, or if the court finds the new district lines are similarly unconstitutional, the judges said they would draw the maps themselves. The redrawn districts would take effect in time for the 2020 elections»
«The state’s 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are also up for election next year, and a majority of them could have new boundaries under the court’s ruling»
«The decision is likely a boon for Democrats, who in 2018 failed to win a majority of the seats in the state House of Representatives, state Senate or the state’s U.S. congressional delegation despite winning the overall popular vote in all three cases»
Il problema se le corti federali abbiano o meno il potere di interferire e, nel caso, surrogare e vicariare l’autorità politica legalmente costituita è approdato alla Corte Suprema, che il 27 giugno 2019 ha rilasciato la seguente sentenza.
«- The Supreme Court rules that federal courts may not block gerrymandering.
– The vote was 5-4 decision, falling along partisan lines.
– “We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the opinion of the court.
– He says those asking the top court to block gerrymandered districts effectively sought “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”»
«Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts»
Si faccia una grande attenzione. La sentenza vieta alle corti federali di non interferire con l’attività politica degli organi elettivi, non solo nel caso specifico, bensì erga omnes, perché costituirebbe una violazione della Costituzione ed “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”
Da quando gli Elettori hanno nominato Mr Trump presidente degli Stati Uniti, i liberal democratici hanno scatenato una guerra giudiziaria nella quale corti di basso livello, ma di chiara fede liberal, hanno sistematicamente bloccato le azioni politiche del Governo. Tutte codeste sentenze sono state poi cassate dalla Suprema Corte, ed anche malo modo, ma l’Amministrazione ne ha risentito, specialmente a livello internazionale, complice la cassa di risonanza dei media liberal.
Alla luce di codesta sentenza possiamo affermare che tali azioni furono il tentativo rivoluzionario di instaurare la dittatura dei giudici.
«an unprecedented expansion of judicial power»
I giudici devono solo attenersi alle leggi, astenendosi dalla politica.
* * * * * * *
«Voters and other plaintiffs in North Carolina and Maryland filed suits challenging their States’ congressional districting maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The North Carolina plaintiffs claimed that the State’s districting plan discriminated against Democrats, while the Maryland plaintiffs claimed that their State’s plan discriminated against Republicans. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Elections Clause, and Article I, §2. The District Courts in both cases ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants appealed directly to this Court.
Held: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Pp. 6–34.
In these cases, the Court is asked to decide an important question of constitutional law. Before it does so, the Court “must find that the question is presented in a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ that is . . . ‘of a Judiciary Nature.’ ” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332,
While it is “the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, sometimes the law is that the Judiciary cannot entertain a claim because it presents a non justiciable “political question,” Baker v. Carr, 369
S. 186, 217. Among the political question cases this Court has identified are those that lack “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving [them].” Ibid. This Court’s partisan gerrymandering cases have left unresolved the question whether such claims are claims of legal right, resolvable according to legal principles, or political questions that must find their resolution elsewhere. See Gill v. Whitford, 585 U. S ….
Courts have nonetheless been called upon to resolve a variety of questions surrounding districting. The claim of population inequality among districts in Baker v. Carr, for example, could be decided under basic equal protection principles. 369 U. S., at 226. Racial discrimination in districting also raises constitutional issues that can be addressed by the federal courts. See Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339, 340. Partisan gerrymandering claims have proved far more difficult to adjudicate, in part because “a jurisdiction may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering.” Hunt v. Cromartie, 526
S. 541, 551. To hold that legislators cannot take their partisan interests into account when drawing district lines would essentially countermand the Framers’ decision to entrust districting to political entities. The “central problem” is “determining when political gerrymandering has gone too far.”….
Any standard for resolving partisan gerrymandering claims must be grounded in a “limited and precise rationale” and be “clear, manageable, and politically neutral.” ….
Partisan gerrymandering claims rest on an instinct that groups with a certain level of political support should enjoy a commensurate level of political power and influence. Such claims invariably sound in a desire for proportional representation, but the Constitution does not require proportional representation, and federal courts are neither equipped nor authorized to apportion political power as a matter of fairness. …..
The fact that the Court can adjudicate one-person, one-vote claims does not mean that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable. This Court’s one-person, one-vote cases recognize that each person is entitled to an equal say in the election of representatives. It hardly follows from that principle that a person is entitled to have his political party achieve representation commensurate to its share of statewide support.»
* * * * * * *
Sua Giustizia Roberts Allega Sua Su Opinione, tra cui leggiamo:
«The question is whether the courts below appropriately exercised judicial power when they found them unconstitutional as well.»
Sua Giustizia Kagan allega un’Opinione contraria.
«Nor is there any reason to doubt, as the majority does, the competence of courts to determine whether a district map “substantially” dilutes the votes of a rival party’s supporters from the everything-but-partisanship baseline described above.»
– The Supreme Court rules that federal courts may not block gerrymandering.
– The vote was 5-4 decision, falling along partisan lines.
– “We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the opinion of the court.
– He says those asking the top court to block gerrymandered districts effectively sought “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that federal courts may not block gerrymandering in a 5-4 decision that fell along partisan lines.
“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the opinion of the court. Roberts wrote that those asking the top court to block gerrymandered districts effectively sought “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”
“Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions,” he wrote.
The court’s decision prompted a fierce dissent from its liberal wing. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
“Of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one,” Kagan wrote. “The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.”
Gerrymandering has largely benefited Republicans in recent years because of the 2010 midterm wave that handed the party control of numerous statehouses across the country. Districts are drawn nationwide every 10 years. The next redistricting is scheduled to take place after the 2020 census.
The justices considered two cases, out of North Carolina and Maryland, in which voters alleged that their congressional districts were unfairly drawn to benefit one political party. The top court had never declared a district map as too partisan. During arguments in March, the conservatives seemed reluctant to weigh in on the matter.
“For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities,” Kagan wrote.
The two cases came from North Carolina and Maryland. In North Carolina, Democratic voters alleged that a map drawn by the GOP legislature in 2016 unfairly benefited Republicans.
In Maryland, it was Republicans who challenged the map, saying that one congressional district drawn in 2011 was unfairly tilted in favor of the Democrats.
In both cases, those behind the maps admitted that they were drawn to benefit their party.
The cases are known as Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726, and Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422.
Con una decisione 5 – 4 la Suprema Corte ha richiesto al Commerce Department, da cui dipende il Census, di fornire ulteriori elementi utili al giudizio sulla questione se inserire o meno nel modulo del censimento la domanda sulla cittadinanza. Questa procedura farà slittare di almeno quattro mesi l’emissione di una sentenza definitiva.
«Trump’s administration has told the courts that its rationale for adding the question was to better enforce a law that protects the voting rights of racial minorities. Critics called that rationale a pretext, with the Supreme Court’s majority embracing that theory.»
«Roberts said that under a U.S. law called the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal government is required to give a reasoned explanation for its actions. Roberts said the sole stated rationale – enforcement of the Voting Right Act – “seems to have been contrived” and was “more of a distraction.”»
«As part of the ruling issued on the last day of the court’s current term, the justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department for it to decide whether to provide a different rationale for requiring people taking part in the census to declare whether they are citizens»
* * * * * * *
«The census, required by the U.S. Constitution, is used to allot seats in the U.S. House and distribute some $800 billion in federal funds.»
«The court ruled against the challengers in a separate 5-4 vote, with all the conservative justices in the majority, that the U.S. Constitution does not in theory prevent the administration or a future one from adding a citizenship question.»
«The court ruled against the challengers in a separate 5-4 vote, with all the conservative justices in the majority, that the U.S. Constitution does not in theory prevent the administration or a future one from adding a citizenship question.»
«The Republican president’s administration had appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts blocked the inclusion of the census question.»
«The Supreme Court had handed Trump some major victories since he took office in 2017, in particular a June 2018 ruling upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. The court in January also let Trump’s policy barring many transgender people from the U.S. military go into effect.»
«While only U.S. citizens can vote, non-citizens comprise an estimated 7 percent of the population»