You are not logged in.
Belter,
Unless you recently became a member of SCOTUS, neither you nor I determine what's constitutional and therefore lawful. Humans have ideas and humans commit their ideas to paper for other humans to read, interpret, and apply as they see fit. The act of reading is interpretation. Other people who are members of SCOTUS disagreed with your interpretation of our laws. Feel free to substitute whatever personal beliefs you have regarding their decision making for their own thought process, but they still determine what is lawful and what is not.
If you want to double down on your sophomoric assertion that scribbling on paper grants authority, be my guest. In the real world, the American people grant the authority to our government. Whether foolish in your mind or not, our Judiciary has authority to determine what is constitutional and what is not. As long as our government is comprised of humans, they will invariably all have their own preferences, prejudices, opinions, and personal beliefs, some or even many of which may not match your own.
After all the slander against me for daring to hold the opinion that SCOTUS determines constitutionality, not Belter, nor any quantity of paper, you think I've embarrassed myself?
The only thing I'm embarrassed about is the idea that someone who holds your beliefs is a product of our educational system.
Yes, you are embarrassing yourself. In your world, if they say the sky is red, it suddenly is red. In my world, facts are independent of opinion.
Belter, update your information on thermal radiation.
Not sure what you mean. Anything not exposed to thermal radiation or other heat source will cool to 0K over time. So keeping liquid propellant cool in space is pretty easy. Much easier than on Earth.
"The long TIV missions require radiation shields on the LO2 and LH2 tank."
We probably have thousands of years to solve it still. We survived the last 100,000 years with no NASA. Even if a meteor hit NY City, humans would be fine. We are far more likely to die in a nuclear war of our own making than by asteroid.
What are you trying to insulate though? If you're talking the sun, a simple shade can do that. Vacuum insulation. If you're trying to keep it from getting so cold it actually freezes, that is a different issue, but it wouldn't be hard to add just enough heat to keep it from cooling completely.
Largish meteors are still only hitting us about once every 25,000 years. The really huge ones only happen every 1 million and the biggest ones only every tens of millions. The Earth has largely cleared its orbit like good planet. We could build a planetary defense system that only gets used every few thousand years.
A better idea might be to drop some satellites into a slightly elliptical solar orbits that have the ability to "tag" these with mini landers that can help us map their orbits, do soil samples, maybe hop around and look for minerals.
For longer distance stations, which we will eventually do, we will likely build those from asteroids and we can harvest lead or other metals to protect the stations. Or we will hollow out asteroids and moons that have stable safe orbits, though the problem with that is mainly the lack of rotation. So I think complete consumption of small asteroids makes the most sense.
Why use nukes, when you can use a giant mirror to concentrate sunlight?
Because nuclear missiles are easier and less expensive to make.
I don't like the fleet of ships with Nuclear arms on board. It might sound like a bad spy movie, but what a temptation for a bunch of criminals or a psychopathic head of a large state!
There would be a blast wave in space. I don't know how strong it would be but it would propagate through the medium of vaporised bomb structure.
But it would make for a great novel or movie. BFS-C ships could probably pull this off when it is finished, though not sure how big the missiles would have to be and how many could be carried.
I disagree with court rulings that aren't consistent with the Constitution. There are dozens of them. Plessy. Dred Scott. Helvering. Wickard. Kelo. Roe. Bush v Gore. Maryland. Raich. Chy Lung. All of them had one thing in common. They were decided based on the political majority of the Court, not based on what the Constitution allows. Not one of them changed the what is or is not constitutional. They only decided how they would rule - for or against the government - on specific issues.
Are you done embarrassing yourself yet?
Basically, what you're saying is that if Democrats can get a 5 Justice majority on SCOTUS, they can ban all modern guns, because they "believe" that the 2A only covers muskets and flintlocks and some kinds of swords maybe. They can force you to buy ObamaCare, they can force you to be a vegan. They can jail you for arguing with them on the internet. They can ban religion. They can take your child and raise him androgynously. And it will all be perfectly "constitutional". All based on your "5/4 wins" theory of the Constitution.
The power to make laws was delegated to our legislature by our Constitution. Our legislature created various immigration laws that have been brought before various courts, including SCOTUS, whereupon those laws were determined to be constitutional and upheld as such or unconstitutional and struck down. Our executive is bound by oath to enforce constitutional laws. Elections may be popularity contests, but upholding laws based upon popularity would run directly counter to the principles our Founders believed in.
Upholding unConstitutional immigration laws is precisely upholding laws by popularity and nothing else.
The skin color of the people coming here is of no concern to me. Demonstrating respect for our laws, as we are required to do, is infinitely more important to me, as it should be to everyone else. I think attributing your own personal beliefs to people you disagree with says far more about you than it does about anyone else. I responded to your intellectually lazy assertions and facially absurd misrepresentations regarding our system of governance so that others who come here will not simply read what you've posted in this thread and assume that everyone else here also holds such ideas.
Social Nationalists always say that. They never mean it. They're scared senseless to be a minority. They are just today's Know Nothings.
Congress has the authority to make laws and it says so in our Constitution.
Only if they are constitutional, authorized and delegated. That's what the "pursuant" means.
I honestly can't tell if you really believe this nonsense you're spouting off or if you're just yanking my chain for your own personal entertainment. I really hope it's the latter.
What does the 10th Amendment say again?
1. Laws are indeed considered to be constitutional unless they are plainly unjust, oppressive, or pernicious.
That's just stuff national socialists say since it doesn't say that ANYWHERE in the Constitution. Also, immigration law is plainly unjust, oppressive AND pernicious so.....even by your own invented standards....."
2. Article II in our Constitution grants authority to the executive branch of our federal government to enforce federal laws. Our immigration laws are federal laws, and as such they are enforceable by the federal government.
Only if they are constitutional.
3. Innocence is assumed until guilt is proven before a trier of fact, otherwise known as a court of law. I'm quite certain that that concept is incorporated into the BOR.
That has nothing to do with Congress. No one is at threat of being put in jail, no charges are being made, EXCEPT against citizens and residents. So we're right back to, when fucking over a resident of the US, the government must prove them guilty of violating a constitutionally valid criminal law
DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW: The 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee "due process of law" to all persons, including foreign students and other aliens in the US. Due process of law requires that orderly legal procedures be followed to establish guilt before a person can be put in jail or otherwise punished. In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, "equal protection under the law." Equal protection under the law means that the law applies to everyone equally, regardless of age, sex, race or wealth, and that no law may discriminate between persons or classes of persons. There are, however, laws that apply only to certain classes of people, such as aliens. As long as there is a reasonable basis for these laws, they satisfy the requirement of fairness and justice. These laws may limit and modify basic rights. Except for these special alien laws, foreign students are subject to the same laws as are American citizens. They are also guaranteed the same protection under the laws and the same civil rights as are American citizens.
Right, thanks for proving my point. Except for the part about the "special alien laws" which are laughably unConstitutional, anti-10th Amendment, anti-14th Amendment.
Nobody knows what they don't know, genius. I do know that three branches of government don't support your interpretation of the constitutionality of our immigration laws. Forgive me if I support their interpretation of our Constitution over the interpretation of a few college professors that you're personally enamored with.
Attacking my superior knowledge of how the Constitution works is just an ad hominem. The "interpretation" of SCOTUS flips back and forth decade after decade, while mine remains fixed and consistent. Theirs is based in whether national socialists have control, or whether social nationalists have control. If SCOTUS were up to defining, accurately, the meaning of the Constitution, then Merrick Garland would have been affirmed to be on SCOTUS. He wasn't, precisely because EVERYONE knows that SCOTUS is political and each Justice votes to support their party more often than they don't. You are trying to have it both ways - "OMG, we've got to keep these dirty libruls off of SCOTUS!!!!" followed by "you can't argue with SCOTUS, they are infallible whenever they agree with me and morons when they don't!!!!"
Try intellectual consistency someday. You might like it.
Sure, that goes without saying. But I doubt plants can be sufficiently damaged within Earth's magnetosphere and hidden in a metal/water structure to actually stop food production. A few cells damaged here and there won't stop a plant. Maybe we'll end up with mutant strawberries the size of watermelons one day though.
The risk from LEO radiation is generally cancer risk over decades. Plants really don't have that issue. If there is radiation that will kill a plant, the humans are already dead.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"I respect the Constitution, except when brown people start coming" isn't a valid philosophy for governing either.
"Our legislature has granted unto itself plenary powers over immigration control. The constitutional role of our legislature is to make law. "
Right, that's my point. Nowhere in the Constitution does Congress get to invent its own powers. Nor is there a power of SCOTUS to rationalize it for them.
There is no "presumption of constitutionality". In fact, it is the opposite. The onus is on a federal government, using BORROWED powers, to demonstrate that it has valid authority. It can't, it doesn't, end of story. All presumption of "innocence" goes to the people and the States ABOVE the Feds. Feds are guilty until proven innocent.
Jurisdiction does't work the way you think. If someone is living here or visiting here, they have all of the protections of the Constitution. At no time did the Founders separate citizens from immigrants in terms of rights.
If you want to allow your kids to remain ignorant, that's fine, they can join the masses, they certainly won't be unique. My professors were brilliant. You don't know what you don't know.
I think the genius of Musk is that he sets ridiculous goals and then frees the engineers to solve them. It's hard to believe he's done as much as he has, though he's done so at incredible financial risk and by promising nearly the impossible. But he always hits his goals, even if a bit late. And without asking for cost overrun money. I'll give him all that. He is a visionary.
Open borders is not a socialist policy. It is an American policy.
Constitutional rights are granted to citizens and don't apply to non-citizens.
That couldn't be more false. Have you ever studied the Constitution? Because I have. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the word "citizen".
Immigration enforcement is a power delegated to the federal government.
I'll give you $1B in cash if you can quote the passage that delegates it in the Constitution.
The fact that the US government nearly arrested a woman for launching her satellites into orbit FROM INDIA without their permission is something that would have caused the Founders to burn down the Capitol building themselves, is telling. They have absolutely no authority over it whatsoever. I think the biggest thing that might drive people to Mars is the lack of free sanctuary on Earth.
I have a vivid imagination. But I am also realistic. I think NASA alone spends $10B/year just on the ISS, which, IMO, has become a profound waste of money. So imagine how much they will spend just to maintain a Mars colony or mission. It always costs way more than you think. The one good thing about Space X is that they at least are able to make adjustments on the fly and they downsized the ITS to make it more realistic. I think they are sketchy about a Mars base because they have their hands beyond full just on trying to the very basics of an Apollo style mission.
I agree, there are definitely variables. But most lack of cohesion is going to more likely found in comet rather than in actual asteroids Most of the NEA are most likely pretty solid rocks. The likelihood that large rocks will stay together over millions or billions of years huddled together is pretty slim. Not sure we've found such a body that didn't have a lot of frozen materials among it. If the asteroid gets so close that we need to make a last ditch effort, we are screwed or less screwed, so I'll go with less screwed. But....if we can see this thing coming and intercept it millions of miles away, the shrapnel from the explosion that strong is going to be sent virtually 100% out of the collision course. This is one of the very first things that pissed me off about Gravity. That the explosion didn't scatter the debris in all directions, but just happened to put most all of it in an unlucky collision course. In any case, I don't see any risk in hitting it hard at a distance and it is pretty much nothing but mandatory to hit it with everything if it's inside lunar orbit. We could try to give it some nudges first and see how it goes.
I think the real solution longer term, since we won't have a short term one, is an array of ships, perhaps a milion or several million miles out, that would have nuclear weapons ready for launch and that would have enough time to get into position and launch missile strikes to change the paths. However, these things would almost certainly fall apart long before they would ever be needed. But for the much more common smaller asteroid, that might intersect lunar orbit, we might want to give it a nudge just because we have the ability and want the practice. And hope we don't make it worse by doing so.
Actually, a better idea and one more likely is that within 100 years, we're going to be annihilating those asteroids with self-replicating mining and printing robots that will attack any asteroid that gets close and turn it into spacecraft and space stations and using up any raw materials they have, even if it is just to build more robots that will fly off and eat another asteroid.
Right, and the 10th Amendment disagrees.
About ICE, about the Border Patrol, about NASA.
This isn't a dictatorship, it's a Constitutional republic.
I don't worry so much about NASA because it isn't the majority trampling the rights of the minority, outside a few dollars per year illegally taken.
SCOTUS said that ObamaCare is constitutional. Jim Crow laws. Arresting cancer stricken pot smokers. Taking land to give to corporations. Arresting people for growing wheat on their farm. So, they have no moral authority over what words mean.
The difference is that NASA of the 60s had one goal. Beat the Russians to the moon. At any cost, at any risk and with all due speed.
Now they are basically a science organization with dozens of fingers in every little area of space exploration, but no big single overarching goal. Which, actually, is a better thing. We're spending our money on learning things, not just throwing it on interplanetary vacations.