The town of Nogales, Arizona, mentioned in my previous post is also a border crossing point. A truck heading south refused to stop, and so the customs officer shot into the truck. This is inexcusable. Likely the men in the truck were up to no good, but it's not impossible the brakes failed* or they were drunk or confused or distracted.
What's wrong with calling their Mexican counterparts not 300 feet away?
PS: Coincidentally, my daughter's car's brakes failed just last week when a hydraulic line failed, but she was able to stop with her emergency brake, so happy ending. That was the final straw for the old car, she is now the happy owner of a brand new Honda Civic Si, though unfortunately she doesn't know how to drive a stick and has to wait for someone to teach her before she can drive it.
I was in a hurry and forgot to link to the article (Man in pickup truck shot at Nogales port of entry while trying to flee into Mexico) and mention that the driver may have been killed (reports vary). Obviously (at least to me) border guards should not be shooting at people, and certainly not into vehicles whose passengers might be completely innocent of any crime, and certainly not with a hundred other vehicles around full of innocent people.
The border guards reported that the truck tried to run an officer over. Not so long ago that would have been good enough for me, but as video has become ubiquitous so have the police been caught lying. There was a shooting, a man was possibly killed, the police are frequently caught covering for their own, so I'll believe the border guards' account when I see the video. There's likely tons of surveillance video at the border.
I'll let you know how my daughter does with The Clutch.
I'll let you know how my daughter does with The Clutch.
When I taught my son, I explained it to him as I drove us to the mall parking lot. Then I had him slowly let the clutch out a number of times so that he would get the feel of that point where it's just starting to engage, so that he could recognize that point just from that feeling. Then I had him let it out more while adding gas and start us moving from a dead stop. He had it down in 10 minutes, but we practiced for another 5 minutes or so.
In Limited government requires a limited president George F. Will argues that Congress gave away too much power to the presidency with Section 232 of the Trade and Expansion Act of 1962, and brings to our attention that this law is being challenged in the U.S. Court of International Trade by U.S. steel importers. In other words, they're challenging President Trump's ability to unilaterally impose Tariffs based upon whatever he decides to be in the interests of national security. Some juicy excerpts, which in the end turns out to be much of it:
quote:Soon, in a federal court that few Americans know exists, there will come a ruling on a constitutional principle that today barely exists but that could, if the judicial branch will resuscitate it, begin to rectify the imbalance between the legislative and executive branches. It is the “nondelegation doctrine,” which expresses John Locke’s justly famous but largely ignored admonition that institutions such as the U.S. Congress are vested with the power “to make laws, and not to make legislators” but “have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.” ... The U.S. Court of International Trade, which sits in New York, is mulling the argument, made on behalf of U.S. steel importers and foreign steel producers, that the discretion that presidents enjoy under Section 232 is so vast that it amounts to unconstrained lawmaking. Hence, it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. ... A “proper” law is not only necessary but also consistent with, among other things, the separation of powers. Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego School of Law and Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia School of Law have argued that a law cannot properly give to the president discretion to “make rules for the governance of society,” which is legislating. ... Not since the Supreme Court’s accommodation of — actually, capitulation to — the New Deal has the court held (in the 1935 Schechter v. U.S. case) that although Congress may permit an executive agency or other entity to make subordinate rules within prescribed limits, it must stipulate policies and standards. In another 1935 case, the court voided a congressional grant of vast discretion to the president because, in the granting statute, Congress did not declare or even indicate any policy or standard to guide or limit the president.
If the Court of International Trade revives the nondelegation doctrine, this might reach the Supreme Court, which upheld Section 232 in a 1976 case that did not turn on the constitutional questions now presented. The court might flinch from the task of defining “excessive” delegation that makes a law not “proper.” However, that task — judging — is the court’s raison d’être.
The Constitution’s first words after the Preamble are: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.” All . James Madison was, as wise people usually are, an accomplished worrier who rarely worried about the wrong things. It turns out, however, that he did when, in Federalist 48, he worried about Congress “drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” For generations, Congress has been a centrifugal machine, spinning off powers. Limited government requires a limited president, which requires limits on what Congress can give away.
In other words, not only is the legislative branch constitutionally not the lackey of the executive branch, they do not constitutionally even have the power to delegate any of their legislative prerogatives to others, including to the president.
An imperial presidency can be a good thing or at least not a menace when there is a good president, but in the hands of a mendacious and malevolent man it imperils us all. If the law is successfully challenged then I will miss the imperial presidency, it worked out okay in the hands of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, but the examples of Nixon and now Trump are telling us that we must let it go.
Re: If Democrats are Honorable, Republicans will Gain a Governorship in Virginia
I don’t understand why you think this parade will end with Kirk Cox, Speaker of the House of Delegate. This being Virginia, they may well have the state dog catcher appointed as governor. Unless he’s accused of beastiality.
The number of voters making a selection for the lieutenant governor was unusually low. And especially low in precincts where Blacks are a majority. And it’s not just that voters simply chose to vote for Governor and skip the other positions - votes for lower positions did not show the same drop-off.
The number of votes missing (even allowing for the expected drop off) seems to be just about enough to swing the election for this post (likely enough to make it a close call). On top of all the other issues, that is very worrying.
Illustrating that the mainstream media can be objective and balanced, the Washington Post just gave Four Pinocchios for Kamala Harris’s claim about Trump’s tax law. Apparently she took the news that tax refund amounts are down 8% this year and implied that that meant people had ended up paying more in taxes. She also implied the problem would get worse over time. The details for why her mistake was so egregious are in the article, so four Pinocchios:
The important point is that it isn't just people on the right making Pinocchio level misstatements of fact that the left acknowledges. It's just that the right has had a monopoly on this type of behavior over the past couple years because they controlled all of Congress and the presidency. Now that Democrats control the House and are starting to declare that they're running for president they should start receiving more Pinocchios.
For that matter, is there any kind of voter fraud that voter ID would prevent?
Thinking about this a little, I think only very small amounts of voter fraud could go undetected, not enough to sway any but the closest of elections. Even with no voter ID every voter still has to check in and give their name and sometimes their address. Since those manning the check-in tables are typically locals, it isn't going to be uncommon that Mrs. Rabinowitz manning the R-U table knows that it is not Mr. Abraham Silverstein standing before her. The plot will quickly unravel when the false Mr. Silverstein is arrested and questioned.
Another problem is that despite their early start, some legitimate voters will beat their impersonators to the polls. They will protest that they have not voted yet and that there must be some mistake. When this happens hundreds of times across a city it can't help but get noticed. Surveillance cameras will allow some of the perpetrators to be identified and arrested, and the plot will be uncovered.
In my state of New Hampshire Clinton beat Trump 348,526 to 345,790, a margin of only 2736. Rather than implementing fraud in hundreds of communities across the state it would be much easier to focus attention on the several large (for New Hampshire) cities of Manchester, Nashua, Concord and maybe Derry. But the odds that none of the 2736 fraudulent votes would be caught out would still be exceedingly small. The plot would still be uncovered.
I guess I don't think that voter fraud significant enough to affect an election possible in any but the closest of races. Voter ID makes it even more impossible, but not by enough to be worth it in my opinion. We have voter ID in New Hampshire and since I have a driver's license it isn't a problem for me, but my 95-year old mother hasn't driven in years. When the voter ID law passed we had to go through the inconvenience of visiting the Social Security office to get her a social security card (lost somewhere somehow long ago), then go to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to get her a special non-driver ID. It was a significant inconvenience and effort for someone that old. In another year or two she will have to renew, which I hope she can do by mail.
So my conclusion is that voter ID only insignificantly reduces the possibility of voter fraud, and it is a significant enough inconvenience to certain segments of the population as to discourage voting.