this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
67 points (95.9% liked)
Pleasant Politics
231 readers
55 users here now
Politics without the jerks.
This community is watched over by a ruthless robot moderator to keep out bad actors. I don't know if it will work. Read [email protected] for a full explanation. The short version is don't be a net negative to the community and you can post here.
Rules
Post political news, your own opinions, or discussion. Anything goes.
All posts must follow the slrpnk sitewide rules.
No personal attacks, no bigotry, no spam. Those will get a manual temporary ban.
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How much can a state realistically hold off when Republicans control the house, the senate, and have a right leaning supreme court?
EDIT: In case it wasn't clear this wasn't sarcasm or anything. I'm genuinely curious.
Stay tuned for the next season of America to find out!
I don't like this show.
Don't worry. We can tape your eyes open so you'll have to watch :)
The name of the game is obstruct and delay.
So just keep delaying as much as you can until the next election that may not happen if Trump gets his way? And then once the election happens, we have to hope that the Democrats learned their lesson at the third time?
That's pretty bleak man.
There are some good obstruction techniques that others have pointed out like messing around with interstate commerce, fees, tariffs, etc, to use as leverage, too.
Illinois could start charging exorbitant tolls to Trucks to enter or leave the state and extra fees to planes coming or going to red states in order to replace any revenue lost from the federal funding. California could start charging export fees to states that don't follow climate requirements. DC could start charging security fees to the federal government and require politicians and scouts to pay for personal armed escorts wherever they go.
Almost all of that is very obviously extremely unconstitutional and would get injuncted well before it could possibly get anywhere near implementation.
Come enforce it then.
If you ignore federal court orders you will go to federal prison.
They will absolutely enforce that. States do not have the authority to charge export taxes.
There's going to arrest an entire state?
They would (and would be correct to) arrest every government official who refuses to comply with the federal order for contempt of court. It's not a difficult enforcement.
And the businesses would obviously refuse to pay illegal taxes.
If you come into a state and break the law the police would be obligated to do their jobs and arrest you for not paying and seize your shipment.
Constitutional crisis speedrun any%
That's not at all how any of this works. That's not even how tax enforcement works.
Police officers who violate a federal order telling them that they are not allowed to enforce illegal taxes will also go to federal prison. The federal government can, will, and should tear state agencies blatantly ignoring explicit federal court orders to pieces.
Like all the states currently ignoring the federal drug classification for cannabis.
It's not the same thing. The federal government probably can shut down any dispensary they want, but has made no effort to do so, largely because their actual authority to prohibit substances that don't cross state lines is not supported all that well constitutionally. That would likely end up in a lengthy legal battle either way. But it likely wouldn't require state agencies to actively enforce federal law, because there's no legal basis to force proactive law enforcement like that. (They can force action in other scenarios, eg forcing states to issue marriage certificates to gay couples, but the drug laws we're talking about don't dictate anything like that, and again, the actual authority behind regulating substances behind state lines is questionable at best.)
The fact that interstate commerce is explicitly entirely federal authority and that the Constitution explicitly prevents states from restricting it most ways makes it so there are no meaningful legal questions to an action like taxing exports. That ruling would be immediate, and anyone attempting to enforce it would be doing so in direct violation of a federal court order. There's plenty of legal basis to prohibit an action by a state that violates the rights of others.
And the federal government would absolutely make it a priority because states crippling interstate commerce would destroy the economy.
Woah woah....are you saying we could actually crack qualified immunity?!
Because if we can, it might be worth it.
I'm guessing we'll see the same legal approach to things like abortion as we currently do with weed. If the fed wants to deal with it they can, but don't expect Colorado to help. Unfortunately with their new sweeping mandate from the people I expect the fed to actually care about abortion more than weed.
I feel like a broken record but idgaf at this point. This ends in civil war when troops are sent in to enforce the agenda of Project 2025
With the pace of litigation they can at least delay things for a good while. Cases still have to work their way up to the supreme court and get heard.
Regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations still have long public comment processes and take years to enact or repeal.
A Senate majority of 53 is workable, but also fragile. That's a pretty small margin for defections, and that is going to put some limits on what can get passed.