AZ Indian Tribe That Controls 75 Miles of Border Won’t Allow TRUMP WALL on their Land

Stretch said:
That's what I was thinking. Give them a choice:
a) build the wall straight along the Mexican border and the Pima have access to the U.S.
b) build the wall around the perimeter of the Pima reservation and they have access to Mexico

View attachment 3492
Click to expand...

NO; because that's not being considerate and fair.

We should at least put an access to this side of the wall, guarded of course.

Just show your ID and it's EASY PEASY - LEMON SQUEEZY. :D
 
Threedee said:
The Traditionalists don't favor a powerful Congress primarily out of fear of corrupting power in an executive, although they recognize that reality. It's more about how they view this republic - whose institutions are epitomized by the legislature, rather than by the courts, the executive, the military, etc.

Keep in mind that what separated conservative Federalists from liberal DRs in the early years was that conservatives believed the Constitution gave great powers to the presidency, and so Washington and Adams went about using them when they saw necessary, in effect establishing precedent. Liberals like Jefferson simply didn't believe the presidency was so empowered, and sought to restrain it when he ran for the office. Ultimately, he caved to his predecessors vision in some major decisions.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment caved Jefferson and the anti nationalists, history revisionist thee dee. Before the 14th, the nation understood state sovereignty as being where most of the power lies with the states. This was confirmed by the leader of the nationalist - federalists Alexander Hamilton himself along with another powerful nationalist, John Adams. both men favored central government but both acknowledged state sovereignty as did James Madison after the constitution was drafted.
 
sear said:
#99

End the Drug War before Sunday breakfast.

The best control is self-control.

We had fewer drug problems before Drug War. Drug War is not the solution. It merely compounds the problem.

And the sanity check that I'm right?

- You tell me. What is the wording of the law that prevents YOU from main-lining heroin? Which law?

- What is the wording of the law that fails to prevent the heroin addict geographically nearest to you from main-lining heroin?

Drug War doesn't work. It doesn't work on you. It doesn't work on him. And if Drug War did work, why did they repeal Prohibition? Why haven't they criminalized tobacco possession?
Click to expand...

Because the government makes a lot of money off of tobacco. Without the tax, a pack of cigarettes should cost about 75 cents.

The fed shouldn't have anything to do with drugs except on the borders where drug infiltration across the borders should be a severe felony. During Prohibition, Canada made a fortune off of booze being illegally brought across US borders while Americans were enduring the depression. A violation of US laws by another country is a violation of international border laws.
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
That's what I was thinking. Give them a choice:
a) build the wall straight along the Mexican border and the Pima have access to the U.S.
b) build the wall around the perimeter of the Pima reservation and they have access to Mexico

View attachment 3492
Click to expand...

there's nothing that says we can't have a gate for them to get through to the US.......a few armed guards to make sure an illegal coming through from Mexico isn't with them would be all that's necessary.......
posted before I saw USF's post.....I should have just said +1.....
 
sear said:
T #95

Yes. Tensions between exec. and legislature has been a theme on Earth for millennia (the Roman senate, etc).

Legislatures are deliberative, and thus intrinsically slower. For the ship of State, that can be a good thing. It didn't take congress too long to declare War on Japan after Pearl Harbor, considering the pace of war in that era. In the Stuxnet era, it may be a different story.

Sea vessels typically have an exec.
Trying to captain a ship with a deliberative body would just end up running more boats aground, etc.

BUT !!

Perhaps interestingly (or perhaps not, I'm a bit geeky) the now retired NASA shuttle fleet were piloted by a parliament of computers; four IBM PC w/ 8088 microprocessors iirc.

- Each shuttle was fly-by-wire. A human couldn't fly one otherwise.

- The electronic parliament would receive a human pilot input command (turn left), and the 4 computers would each independently calculate a way to execute the pilot command. Then they'd all vote. If it was a consensus, they'd execute their mutually agreed upon plan: fire retro-rocket #6, or left rudder, or whatever.

BUT !!

- If three of the computers agreed, but one did not; that one computer's vote was then automatically electronically revoked, and the remaining 3 computers would continue to pilot the shuttle for the remainder of the flight.

I doubt we'll ever see a parliament of humans captaining a sea ship, or an air ship. We're just too slow, and analog.
Click to expand...

Use the quote feature.
No one is going to go back and hunt for post # 95
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top