SHCHASTYA, Ukraine—The late winter weather in Ukraine alternates among frigid, cool, snow, and rain—teasing the arrival of spring.
The 2-year-old war, which has ravaged eastern Ukraine, killing more than 10,000 and displacing more than 1 million, is as fickle as the weather—teasing the possibility of peace without ever achieving it.
Both sides of the conflict renewed their commitment to the cease-fire in September, reducing the scale and intensity of the Ukraine war to a shadow of what it was during the fall of 2014 and the first few months of 2015.
But the war is not over.
During a six-day period from Feb. 27 to March 3, this correspondent visited Ukrainian troops deployed at both the front line and the rear echelon, stretching from the southernmost extension of the front lines outside the city of Mariupol to the war’s northern limit near the town of Shchastya, outside the separatist-controlled city of Luhansk.
Along the front lines, Ukrainian troops are dug in and ready for combat.
As one soldier put it: “This is my life now.”
Combined Russian-separatist artillery, tank, mortar, and small arms attacks occur daily at hot spots near Donetsk, capital of the Donetsk People’s Republic, one of two breakaway territories.
“It’s like this every day,” John Slobodyan, 23, a soldier in the Ukrainian army’s 93rd Brigade, said. He spoke as the bass notes of artillery cut through the air at a Ukrainian outpost near the town of Karlivka, about six miles from Donetsk.
This February is the 225th anniversary of Alexander Hamilton’s and Thomas Jefferson’s famous 1791 debate—carried on in President George Washington’s cabinet—over the constitutionality of Hamilton’s proposed Bank of the United States.
It might seem strange to call such an anniversary to mind. After all, we usually celebrate our great moments of national agreement (like the Declaration of Independence), not of controversy. It might even be a little painful, since the bank bill argument was only the opening shot in a bitter political and constitutional battle between Washington’s two chief ministers.
Nevertheless, it is proper to celebrate and reflect on this first major constitutional dispute in our history. Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed about the correct interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause and therefore about the legitimate scope of the powers of the federal government.
They agreed, however, on something more fundamental. What united them was the importance of constitutional fidelity, or the need to make sure that government policy is guided by the true meaning of the Constitution.
At first sight, Jefferson emerges as the Constitution’s champion in this dispute. Hamilton’s initial report calling for a national bank did not even bother to bring forward any constitutional basis for such a measure.
It was Jefferson, following James Madison’s lead, who contended that the Necessary and Proper Clause could not be pushed so far as to justify the creation of such an institution. Nevertheless, in the clash of argument over the question Hamilton, too, established his constitutional seriousness.
He replied to Jefferson at impressive length, trying to show that Jefferson had misunderstood the Necessary and Proper Clause, that it could reasonably be read to authorize laws that were, if not indispensable to, at least reasonably related to the exercise of the government’s enumerated powers.
Hamilton prevailed, and George Washington signed the bill into law. This reminds us of Washington’s often overlooked role in our first great constitutional debate: He caused it by calling for Hamilton and Jefferson’s written opinions of the question of the bank’s constitutionality. In doing so, Washington set a high example of constitutional statesmanship and earned, once again, his unique position of honor among our nation’s presidents.
Washington, who usually followed Hamilton’s advice on matters of domestic policy, surely favored the bank bill. And since it had been passed easily in both houses of Congress, after Madison had raised his constitutional objections in the House, Washington had plenty of political cover, had he wanted to exploit it, to simply sign the bill and move on. That he instead called for further argument within his own cabinet shows that he was utterly serious about keeping his administration’s policy square with the Constitution.
We live in a time of widespread constitutional unseriousness. It is a time in which a speaker of the House, asked about the constitutional basis of a bill pending before the Congress, can answer, “Are you serious?” In such times, we sorely need the example of such statesmen as Jefferson, Hamilton, and Washington.
Yeah I would say this is a HUGE red flag that we have a GOVT that has gotten TOO BIG, TOO FAST and has TOO MUCH POWER.
I would like to be there to see the faces of the people who were singing Obama’s praises all these 8 years when the Bank calls them to tell them their Business credit line has been closed down because the Govt deems their Business as one of the “UNWANTED” industries. Sound far fetched? Watch the video clip. To me it sounds like a classic Stalin or Hitler stunt. Next, instead of businesses it will be PEOPLE getting labeled as “unwanted”. -SF
Last week, the House of Representatives took the first major step toward ending Operation Choke Point, a government program that critics say has been used to target legal business owners.
The Daily Signal began covering Operation Choke Point 18 months ago, when business owners voiced concern about their bank accounts being stymied or shut down. Now, we’re taking a look back at some of the major events that took place before the House was able to push through its bill to bring Operation Choke Point to a halt.
If you have not heard about this, you need to watch this 1 minute clip below and send it to all your friends. This is one of the most nefarious attempts yet by Obama’s cronies in the Justice Department to control and/or influence various private industry, including firearms and ammunition manufacturers, via Government extortion.
Thank God this measure got shot down in Congress but don’t be surprised if BHO pulls one of his famous “Executive Actions”, aka, “The Tyrant’s Pen” very soon.
I warned over 3 years go that the last year of Obama’s reign would be the most dangerous and I think I am being proven right.-SF
Find Out If Your Lawmaker Voted to End Operation Choke Point
The House of Representatives concluded a tense debate Thursday by voting 250-169 to end a controversial Obama administration program called Operation Choke Point.
Critics say the secretive program, run by the Department of Justice, has been used to target politically unpopular industries such as gun sellers.
“We’re elated,” Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., one of the bill’s co-sponsors, told The Daily Signal after the vote. “We’ve been working on this for two and a half years—we’ve been lied to, put off and dissed by the different regulatory agencies, and we’ve prevailed.”
Operation Choke Point was designed by the Justice Department in 2013 as a way to fight fraud by pressuring banks to “choke off” access to credit and other banking services by merchants and industries the administration considered at a high risk for fraud.
Without access to banking services, it is difficult—if not impossible—for a business to survive.
Republicans who have been fighting the program believe the Obama administration abused its power under Operation Choke Point by targeting entire lines of legal industries. Some members view the tactics as “reminiscent of the IRS targeting of conservatives,” as Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., said Thursday on the House floor.
Businesses targeted under Operation Choke Point include gun sellers, pawn shops and short-term lenders. The National Rifle Association is among groups that have strongly come out against it.
“Congressman Luetkemeyer’s legislation puts an end to the Obama administration’s unwarranted attacks upon a legal and thriving sector of the American economy,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “On behalf of the NRA’s 5 million members, I’d like to thank Congressman Luetkemeyer for his steadfast support of the Second Amendment and congratulate him on the passage of H.R. 766.”
Luetkemeyer’s bill, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, bans federal agencies that oversee banks from requesting or ordering that banks terminate customer accounts “unless the regulator has material reason.”
“We are debating a bill on the floor of the House that says the government can’t force banks to shut down legal banking accounts,” Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., said on the House floor. “The fact that we have to have this debate frightens me.”
The measure requires that any requests to close a customer’s banking account that come from a federal official be made in writing and rely on information other than “reputational risk.”
The term “reputational risk” has become a sticking point in the Operation Choke Point debate, as critics of the program believe the term has been used to provide federal regulators a way to close bank accounts of legal and legitimate businesses the Obama administration doesn’t like.
“Reputational risk” is a commonly used term in the banking industry to describe businesses—often illegal—that are at high risk for fraud.
In 2011, guidelines created by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) labeled firearms and ammunition sellers as “reputational risks,” pinning them alongside pornography and other enterprises like Ponzi schemes and racist materials.
According to investigations conducted by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, that list was adopted into the Justice Department’s Operation Choke Point. After its adoption, many gun sellers, pawn shops and short-term lenders reported their bank accounts being shut down.
Read the Remainder and See How your Lawmakers Voted at Daily Signal
Why it has took this long for a Memorial to be erected for those Americans who were killed in World War 1 is baffling to me. I take it as the Ultimate sign of Disrespect toward men who gave the ultimate Sacrifice. -SF
World War I is one of the most pivotal events in U.S. history, leaving hundreds of thousands of American soldiers dead in a bloody fight to preserve freedom and democracy.
Today, tourists who descend on the nation’s capital—littered with statues and monuments of remembrance—find not a single national memorial dedicated to Americans who served during the Great War.
“No war in our history needs more visibility or more awareness than World War I because it’s actually one that many people don’t know much about,” Libby O’Connell, chief historian for The History Channel, told The Daily Signal.
“It really marked the beginning of the American century—there were changes in technology, aviation, and the whole spirit of the U.S.”
More than two years after Congress tasked the World War I Centennial Commission to establish a national commemoration site for World War I, the jury on Tuesday unveiled the design of the new memorial.
The congressional commission unanimously chose a design called “The Weight of Sacrifice,” submitted by 25-year-old architect Joe Weishaar of Chicago and veteran sculptor Sabin Howard, 52, of New York, after spending roughly eight months sifting through 350 entries. It was one of five finalists.
O’Connell, who served as a commissioner, said the monument recognizes all who were involved during the war—from the 5 million men and women who signed up to serve on the U.S. home front to support the troops to the nearly 117,000 U.S. servicemen who lost their lives.
They agreed, however, on something more fundamental. What united them was the importance of constitutional fidelity, or the need to make sure that government policy is guided by the true meaning of the Constitution.
At first sight, Jefferson emerges as the Constitution’s champion in this dispute. Hamilton’s initial report calling for a national bank did not even bother to bring forward any constitutional basis for such a measure.
It was Jefferson, following James Madison’s lead, who contended that the Necessary and Proper Clause could not be pushed so far as to justify the creation of such an institution. Nevertheless, in the clash of argument over the question Hamilton, too, established his constitutional seriousness.
He replied to Jefferson at impressive length, trying to show that Jefferson had misunderstood the Necessary and Proper Clause, that it could reasonably be read to authorize laws that were, if not indispensable to, at least reasonably related to the exercise of the government’s enumerated powers.
Hamilton prevailed, and George Washington signed the bill into law. This reminds us of Washington’s often overlooked role in our first great constitutional debate: He caused it by calling for Hamilton and Jefferson’s written opinions of the question of the bank’s constitutionality. In doing so, Washington set a high example of constitutional statesmanship and earned, once again, his unique position of honor among our nation’s presidents.
Washington, who usually followed Hamilton’s advice on matters of domestic policy, surely favored the bank bill. And since it had been passed easily in both houses of Congress, after Madison had raised his constitutional objections in the House, Washington had plenty of political cover, had he wanted to exploit it, to simply sign the bill and move on. That he instead called for further argument within his own cabinet shows that he was utterly serious about keeping his administration’s policy square with the Constitution.
We live in a time of widespread constitutional unseriousness. It is a time in which a speaker of the House, asked about the constitutional basis of a bill pending before the Congress, can answer, “Are you serious?” In such times, we sorely need the example of such statesmen as Jefferson, Hamilton, and Washington.
Read the Original Article at Daily Signal