All Activity

See above. The Senate may not interpret the Constitution, but they damn well do write it. Including the 14th amendment.

I know you know the law well enough to know that when the Supreme Court is answering a constitutional question, they go back to the framers, including any of their writings or recorded conversations. The Senate was responsible for framing the 14th amendment, and their conversations are meticulously chronicled. And they are 100% clear about their intent. Not even native Americans born in the United States were considered citizens by birth, and a separate law in the twenties had to be passed in order to make them so. This will be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court that got rid of Roe and Chevron. Did you think I meant the current Senate? My bad if I was unclear.

While everyone is watching Yemen and potentially Iran...

https://notthebee.com/article/the-supreme-court-allows-trumps-trans-ban-to-take-effect-immediately This may well be really hard on the Navy.

All valid responses. Again, my answer was “Yes, due process does apply”. What exactly does the “right amount” of due process look like? That’s the million dollar question, and I don’t have a perfect answer - which is why I’m not running for public office. I would think that the “right amount” of due process is somewhere between “Do you have your papers on you RIGHT NOW? No? Deportation to El Salvador immediately” and the Supreme Court hearing every single case. In my non-lawyer brain that read it somewhere, “due process” means you get to plead your side of the argument - to what level, that depends. Pulled over for a speeding ticket? Yeah I guess you can go to the judge and argue. Murder charge? You get a full jury trial with a chance to defend yourself. So maybe something like ICE agents can ask you for some sort of papers (but they have to have probably cause, and it already has to be agreed upon what “valid papers” are - passport? Real ID? Green card?) and if you can’t produce them (they’re at home because nobody carries their passport around, etc) then they follow you home and allow you to get the papers? I get that we don’t want to ask for ID, a person can’t produce one, so they are released with a court summons in the future…because that hasn’t been working. Maybe something like that? But whatever it is, I think it needs to be voted on by Congress, because to me it seems extremely close to a law (if not a legal procedure subject to governance just like a cop pulling you over, etc), versus done via Executive Order. Plus, if it is written into law, then we can all sleep easy at night knowing it met judicial review and has a majority of the representatives of the people (where the real power of government should be coming from) behind it. AND we are meeting the intent and text of the constitution by following the law (vice an EO) therefore nobody is being deprived of their due process. And maybe that is already what is happening, I don’t follow ICE’s current procedures - I just know that every person in this country is afforded due process and protection under the law. What that is needs to be decided BEFORE the agents start rolling out and kicking in doors. Good discussion, I appreciate the lack of snark.

No one cares what the Senate thinks of the 14th Amendment since they aren't the official interpreters of the Constitution and applicable amendments. Sorta like how booms didn't give a shit what pilots thought of how to make contact or pilot's not giving a shit about what a boom thought of an approach and landing.

Can Supreme Court Justices not be fired via impeachment? Stan Eval is a commander's program, however, as a commander when you R&C an evaluator, you are giving trust and confidence in that evaluator to follow applicable associate directives and technical manuals. Aren't you a MC-130 guy? Let's see what the MC-130V2 says: Huh, weird it doesn't state "what the commander's directives are."

Not a perfect comparison but I’ll play: No I do not to your first question; the second one has more than two options and it’s where your analogy falters. Stan/eval is a commanders program, and I fired an EP (once) for not evaluating in accordance to my directives. The gentlemen fired was safety focused to a fault, and I wanted to accept more risk for gains in combat. He wouldn’t change his outlook to account for the aggressive culture I was hired to facilitate, so I overrode his judgement, reclaimed the authority, and hired new EPs who got with the program. Good reply! I’ll start by saying I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement quoted. My understanding of POTUS perspective is a challenge on what constitutes “due process” as he’s searching for a streamlined system fit for circumstances. Getting 20 million people in front of a judge surpasses existing resources, and it was illegal for the previous administration to let them in. If the legal answer is impossible, what’s the real world solution? The people elected an executive who said “I’m deporting them” because they were tired of Laken Riley’s being murdered by illegal criminals. Democrat lawyers say “not so fast, rule of law!” (Ironic since they ignored rule of law to get the nation into this situation) and have frozen our executives ability to do what the people want. You’re right the best answer is congress to legislate, but absent that are we forced to accept millions of Venezuelan gangsters soaking up social resources and killing citizens? This issue was ignored for years when numbers were small & the people were mainly coming in to work. Under Biden some countries dumped their prison population on us, the amount of young Chinese men who entered is worrying from a national security POV. So thank you again for the thoughtful reply. What do you think POTUS should do since the courts cannot process the volume of people we’re dealing with?

Well the question wasn’t about the senate, it was about the constitution. And last I checked the senate doesn’t interpret the constitution, the Supreme Court does. So I’ll stick with my current assessment until the text or the court’s interpretation of the law changes.

Boy are you in for a shock when you actually look into the Senate conversations regarding the 14th amendment. Spoiler alert, it explicitly does not include anyone subject to the jurisdiction of another country. Regroup, reassess, then reattack.

Yes, and both. Assuming these illegal criminal invaders are humans, then yes. The 5th amendment states that “No PERSON shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” and the 14th amendment states “…nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” It doesn’t say “citizen”, it doesn’t say “legal resident”, it doesn’t say “American”, it doesn’t say “English speaking adult” or anything other descriptor. It says PERSON. So these PEOPLE have a right to due process; in your example, this would actually determine if they are in fact “criminal” and/or “invaders”. And it was decided in Plyler vs Doe (1981) that according to the Supreme Court, “Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term.” Further in the court documents reads “Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” If you don’t like it, then get the law changed - but until it changes, I would expect people who take an oath to the constitution to follow it as currently written/interpreted.

Ya, I can't speak to the needs of the EX, but I have no doubt the whiskeys would be a better option, pretty much for anything. Of course it's not going to compare to the over water Whiskeys, nothing ever will. I wish we could all have the Whiskeys that the NOLA guys have, but wrt overland airspace, it's right up with with many of the ones you listed. It's 60-70 miles wide by about 150-160NM long if you utilize the northern ATCAA. Much of it has low airspace to the surface (few shelfs) and most of it goes to 50k, an over water restricted for bombs (also connects to a land range as well, though not great), with ATCAAs to the west for tankers, etc... It's certainly not perfect, but has fewer restrictions than many of the overland airspace I've used over the years. At it's widest, the BMGR is 50 miles with much of it closer to 40 NM and it's about the same range if not a little less, if you can get it all. If I remember correctly, the north part of the NTTR is 150ish miles and you get to squeeze into the airspace north of the container which is narrower than APN. The Yukon in AK is great, but of course we all get to squeeze into two narrow bands at X altitudes to avoid the airliners... I've only used the Evans/Saline in the Edwards airspace so I can't speak much to that. But unless there are ATCAAs I can't see, even if you get the entire Edwards complex, it's the same length of the complex. I do think, if you get the entire complex, it would be much better becuase of the the width/depth. Holloman restricted are about 130NM N/S. I've never flown there so I'm not sure if there are ATCAAs connecting the restricted to the MOA in the east. If they do, it looks like you're looking at 110NM E/W for a narrow corridor. I'm not saying it's better/worse than any of these, but it's just as big or bigger than some of the places you listed. If you could get them all with no restrictions, then I'd agree that they're all much larger. But when you look at the effective airspace that you can get on the daily, it's right up there. Lets be honest, a vast majority of the squadrons out there, are only flying with themselves daily anyway.

Evaluators can lose the qual for being dumbasses. like hooks for silly reasons.

Indeed. They definitely offer some great flexibility with colors and designs, but I think people will miss the heritage of traditional patches if we continue with PVC.

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-133-due-process-and-the-rule

Do you argue with an evaluator who's giving you a check ride on how you don't agree with their interpretation of an area of checkride criteria? Who's charged with the final interpretation of said check ride criteria, you or the evaluator?

Time will tell how well they hold up...

When Trump throws out the NFA, GCA and FOPA as being unconstitutional (which they all are!), I will give him full credit for supporting and defending the Constitution! By the way, I would have credited Biden or Obama if they did the same, but neither did!

AI is making Hollywood, and especially "actors," irrelevant...

Trump is a media guy from a previous generation. Hollywood is a glamorous memory full of him on the red carpet and fucking a bunch of wannabe starlets. It's classic Trump, taking something good and pushing it to an extreme that is going to end up sabotaging the entire movement.

The primary purpose the back seat will serve is intel, maintainers, etc. getting FAM flights. Good deal for those guys. For the AD side, the WSO mafia will win and they’ll put two dudes in a jet to get 1/2 the SA and capability…except for the 6.9% of the time crew composition that actually nails it, I’ll concede that does exist every once in a while.

Hollywood is absolute trash. Trump is fucking this one up - please by all means Hollywood scum, go elsewhere, and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

AMF's - We will be just fine without them. There are approximately 900 active-duty GFOs. The current number is low for the post-Cold War era and substantially lower than the number of GFOs in the 1960s-1980s, when the Armed Forces were much larger in size than they are today. However, while always very small in comparison to the total force, the GFO corps has increased as a percentage of the total force over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, while they made up about one-sixteenth of one percent (0.063%) of the total force in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs is now increased by 31%. This historical trend is more pronounced with respect to four-star officers (which grew from 0.0014% of the total force to 0.0029%, a 107% increase) and three-star officers (which grew from 0.0045% of the total force to 0.0103%, a 129% increase). One- and two-star officers increased less rapidly (from 0.0425% of the total force to 0.0500%, a 17.6% increase). Sorry Chang - better start looking for a board to hire you to do nothing but bloviate on the outside. RSU's are a real thing, check them out.

Yeah you missed them. Pretty sad.

You sort of addressed the question in your last sentence which was the nuance I sought to explore (SC rulings can be reversed or clarified when new situations arise, therefore an opinion on constitutional matters is in a different category than the document itself). But why are you putting words in my mouth & asserting what I believe? I’ll pass on engaging in discussion with you, needlessly combative.