Yet it somehow doesn't strike him as off at all that long standing allies suddenly feel a need to band against us. It's a mystery I say, maybe they just woke up and had a bad morning...
Yeah, my view is he looks to throw out as much insane bullshit as he can and see what he can make stick.
From his perspective it costs virtually nothing beyond a pen and paper, and it either wastes a bunch of resources and time for opposition, or he gets what he wants if it goes unopposed, basically win/win for $0.
How to stop him is another matter, but ones like this 'should' be easy wins.
Half the things these folks try and do they don't actually have the ability to. For a lot of it it's distraction to keep people spending time and money in court while they pillage and plunder.
By its terms, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, referred to as the Elections Clause, contemplates that state legislatures will establish the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, subject to Congress making or altering such state regulations (except as to the place of choosing Senators).1 The Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states "to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns."2
IANAL: This sounds like more grandstanding to appease his cult sure to be challenged.
What you might call a stateful NAT is really a 1-1 NAT, anything going out picks up an IP and anything retuned to that IP is routed back to the single address behind the NAT. Most home users a many to one source nat so their internal devices pick up a routable IP and multiple connections to a given dest are tracked by a source port map to route return traffic to the appropriate internal host.
Basically yes to what you said, but a port forward technically is a route map inbound to a mapped IP. You could have an ACL or firewall rule to control access to the NAT but in itself the forward isn't a true firewall allow.
Same basic result but if you trace a packet into a router without a port forward it'll be dropped before egress rather than being truly blocked. I think where some of the contention lies is that routing between private nets you have something like:
0.0.0.0/0 > 192.168.1.1
10.0.0.0/8 > 192.168.2.1
The more specific route would send everything for 10.x to the .2 route and it would be relayed as the routing tables dictate from that device. So a NAT in that case isn't a filter.
From a routable address to non-route 1918 address as most would have from outside in though you can't make that jump without a map (forward) into the local subnet.
So maybe more appropriate to say a NAT 'can' act as a firewall, but only by virtue of losing the route rather than blocking it.
I'm sure there's something at the state level, found a local ref here. Seems to be one of those laws where it's illegal if they already wanted a reason to mess with the driver.
NAT in the sense used when people talk about at home is a source nat, or as we like to call it in the office space a hide address, everyone going to the adjacent net appears to be the same source IP and the system maintains a table of connections to correlate return traffic to.
The other direction though, if you where on that upstream net and tried to target traffic towards the SNAT address above the router has no idea where to send it to unless there's a map to designate where incoming connections need to be sent on the other side of the NAT so it ends up being dropped. I suppose in theory it could try and send it to everyone in the local side net, but if you get multiple responses everything is going to get hosed up.
So from the perspective of session state initiation it can act as a firewall since without route maps it only will work from one side.
Assuming it's not a 1-1 NAT it does make for a functional unidirectional firewall. Now, a pure router in the sense of simply offering a gateway to another subnet doesn't do much, but the typical home router as most people think of it is creating a snat for multiple devices to reach out to the internet and without port forwarding effectively blocks off traffic from the outside in.
Yet it somehow doesn't strike him as off at all that long standing allies suddenly feel a need to band against us. It's a mystery I say, maybe they just woke up and had a bad morning...