A little serious...

[bladestarr]

*choke* You want to screen every place of social gatering daily? Civil liberties nothin', who's paying for that?

If you're going to have a law that restricts people's personal freedoms, you will need strict enforcement, otherwise it can and will fail. This was proven during the REAL Prohibition. It was a stupid law that doesn't work, just like the current stupid laws about "illegal narcotics" that don't work and waste tons of money without any real results or progress. If you want such an insane law to be valid, you have to provide an insane amount of funding to enforce it.

So let me get this straight: the only way you can think of to write a law to compel enforcement as you intend is to add lines you find reprehensible, and which violate the fourth amendment?

Can you find another way to enforce a law that takes away civil liberties without taking away even MORE civil liberties in the process?

Simple: declare it the state's responsibility to enforce this one. You didn't say it had to be the feds.

But this is a law passed by the Federal Congress, not by a state assembly. Thus it is inherently implied that the President and the rest of the federal executive branch is responsible for enforcing it.

That's a pretty bold statement. What happens if the mandatory enforement date is too soon to get it done, even if you (as president) had the best intentions of doing it? In this example, it would require one of the largest increases in the size of the federal governmet this country has ever seen, and you want it done in just over 4 months? And what if congress, as they so often do, fail to fund their laws? It's bad enough as is, but combined with a mandatory executon date, that violates the checks and balances system--congress could then effectively boot out a president for any reason where previously he had to commit misconduct of office or some crime. They could pass a law saying he has to establish a moon colony by next Tuesday or something, and when he inevitably fails, he gets booted out.

You have a valid point, I spoke to quickly and too harshly when I mentioned "impeachment". But what can you do when the President fails to adequately perform in his role as the chief executive? In Britain you could perform a vote of no confidence, but we don't have a real tradition of that here. The only other option is censure, and that's just a slap on the wrist that really has no power to do anything to the President but embarrass him/her. So honestly I don't have an answer for this.

[Lissa]

sirgallahad2 said:

Thanks for the kind words Lissa. JP-8 has been used in Army ground vehicles for a little while now. They work just fine in the track vehicles because all the tracks have jet engines anyway. The trucks that would normally use diesel fuel burn out a LOT faster. The low flash point/higher burning temperature of JP-8 combined with the stock water pump and engine cooling system in the road trucks are just KILLING the engines.

By the way Lissa, I have always wanted to ask you this. Did you personally come up with the equations for the FSII, CI, and SDA amounts into JP-8?

Nope! Actually, I had nothing to do with JP-8- that's what they were using when I started my project back in 1996.

The issue I was working on (and I can tell you because it is published) is that for "future high speed aircraft", they needed to reduce the payload in order to achieve the speeds they wanted to achieve. (We're not sure, but we're guessing Mach 5 or higher.) Their solution? Remove the cooling system and find a fuel that could serve as both coolant and as fuel- basically circulate the fuel through the parts that need cooling. But the problem is, when you heat up JP-8, it breaks down to form solids on the fuel lines and nozzles. (That's why it sucks so badly for some of your diesel engines.) It's obvious why deposits in delivery lines are bad, but in nozzles not only could the deposits fully block the delivery system, but they can partially block it and change the geometry of how the fuel is sprayed into the combustion chamber. If the spray geometry is changed, it can create hot spots or what have you- basically, it's very bad for the engine.

Part of the issue with JP-8 IS actually the additive package. We were able to get our hands on some JP-8 before the additives were, well, added, and it performed much better in my flow reactor than the regular JP-8. I'm not sure what the molecular structure of any of the additives are (it's proprietary), but I'd bet any money there are sulfur compounds in them, just by the stench of the fuel. (I usually like petroleum smells, but JP-8 is flat-out nasty. I used to be able to clear out the whole floor when I'd run my experiments!) Sulfur makes these deposits form faster, so that would explain why the additive-free JP-8 performed so much better.

An interesting side note- jet engines USED to run on gasoline, which is quite different molecularly from diesel. They switched to kerosene during WWII due to the gasoline shortage, and stayed switched over largely because of the higher flash point. Just random fuel knowledge for the day.

[DocD83]

Can you find another way to enforce a law that takes away civil liberties without taking away even MORE civil liberties in the process?

Of course. Who ever said warrants only allow good laws to be enforced?

But that's kind of my point. It's an amendment in our specific example, but most things would be ordinary laws, and warrantless searches stand a pretty good chance of getting struck down in the courts. I still can not think of a way to write a law that would tie the president's hands as far as enforcement.

But this is a law passed by the Federal Congress, not by a state assembly. Thus it is inherently implied that the President and the rest of the federal executive branch is responsible for enforcing it.

Most federal laws are enforced, on the street level, by state and local agencies. When was the last time you were pulled over by an FBI agent? It's a state or local cop who pulls you over, but if he finds 50 pounds of crack in the car, you get federal drug trafficing charges.

[bladestarr]

Most federal laws are enforced, on the street level, by state and local agencies. When was the last time you were pulled over by an FBI agent? It's a state or local cop who pulls you over, but if he finds 50 pounds of crack in the car, you get federal drug trafficing charges.

There are no federal traffic laws. All traffic laws ARE state laws, so they vary state to state. That's why state or local officials are the enforcers. The drug charges that you refer to however are governed by federal law. The only time that the federal government gets involved in regular traffic issues is in the circumstance of interstate events, because it's the federal government's duty and right to ensure "domestic commerce" between the states. Anything intrastate however, is entirely enforced by state or local peace officer, unless some other federal charges are involved.

It's an amendment in our specific example, but most things would be ordinary laws, and warrantless searches stand a pretty good chance of getting struck down in the courts.

Exactly true, because they are a violation of our civil liberties. The courts will more than likely strike down anything that goes against the Constitution.

I still can not think of a way to write a law that would tie the president's hands as far as enforcement.

King George agrees with you....

Language in Division B of the Act, under the heading "Office of Justice Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance," purports to require the Attorney General to consult congressional committees prior to allocating appropriations for expenditure to execute the law.

Because the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with congressional committees or to involve them in executive decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the provision to require only notification.

At the same time, the Attorney General shall, as a matter of comity between the executive and legislative branches, seek and consider the views of appropriate committees in this matter as the Attorney General deems appropriate. . . .

George W. Bush

The White House,

December 30, 2005

Then again, this is coming from a guy that wants to be able to do anything he wants to without oversight.

[DocD83]

There are no federal traffic laws.

I was just using it as a for instance, but strictly speaking, there are some federal laws that could be enforced with traffic stops. Aside from the oddball case of federal lands (e.g., military bases), there are some federal automotive safety laws. Currently they're enforced by the feds at the manufacturer level, and by state/local forces on the street level (sort of--their own safety laws are enforced, but since the state laws are more strict, what's the difference?). And as you say:

it's the federal government's duty and right to ensure "domestic commerce" between the states.

So by your logic, the president is in dereliction of his duties if there isn't an FBI checkpoint at every interstate border crossing, to make sure you didn't modify your tail lights or are carrying drugs/kidnap victims/etc.

Anything intrastate however, is entirely enforced by state or local peace officer, unless some other federal charges are involved.

Even when federal crimes are involved, it's still the state/local guys who arrest you if they're the ones on scene. They'll just hand you over later on if the feds want you.

King George agrees with you....

So which side of this argument are you on? Earlier you advocated writing laws specifically enough to compel enforcement exactly as congress wants it done. We've been back and forth trying to find an example of how to legally do that, and now...have you given up?

Your example is not a very good one:

Because the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with congressional committees or to involve them in executive decision-making,

That is absolutely right. Congress can require notification, they can require that they be allowed to voice opinion, but they can not require that the executive branch take marching orders from the legislative outside of the law as it was passed and amended. To do so would be a blatant violation of the separation of powers, and the signing statement appears to have been a favor to congress--it spared them losing a court battle.

If that's the worst signing statement you can find, then the whole issue was majorly screwed up by the media.

Edited to add: Do you have the text of the law in question handy?

[bladestarr]

have you given up?

Pretty much. You win this round. But I'll get you next time Gadget, next time!!!! *mmmrrrrraaaaaaaaoooooowwwwwwwww!!!!*

Oh, Here is the original bill that you asked for, it is yet another example of how disgustingly long and complex these laws are. It also shows just how much money the government is throwing out there to protect everyone ELSE's borders.

[sirgallahad2]

Wow Lissa, Yous is smart. (lol) So THAT's what a good education gets you. You gotta love the sulfur content of the JP-8. I'm sure they need the sulfur for thermal stability, but over enough heat and stress the sulfur builds up, reacts (to SOMETHING I would imagine) and becomes low-grade sulfuric acid. The truck engines in Iraq are burning out a LOT faster than the Army is willing to acknowledge. I started working at a fuel company literally the next day after I got out of the Army. The Lab equipment I get to use at the company is like friggin Star Trek compared to what I was using in the Army. In the Army we did API Gravity with the 1,000 ml cylinder and a Hydrometer for frack's sake. I actually ENJOY my job.