5 ms·

> It has to enforce federal law, and federal law trumps state law. This might be factually correct, but it's not how it works in practice. The federal governm

> It has to enforce federal law, and federal law trumps state law. This might be factually correct, but it's not how it works in practice. The federal government exists at the behest of the states, not the other way around. When states start banding together in direct protest of the federal government, there's two paths forward: one escalates violence and leads to a civil war, the other peaceful strips the federal government of illegitimate power. This is why the DEA cannot enforce their brain dead cannabis laws in California, and why the ATF cannot enforce their brain dead gun laws in Texas.

jcranmer 3y ago
> The federal government exists at the behest of the states, not the other way around. That is very fundamentally not true--it is the reason the US Constitution exists at all in the first place. In the US, it is neither the case that states exist at the behest of the federal government (that would be true in a unitary state, which most US states are, incidentally), nor that the federal government exists at the behest of the states (that would be true in a confederation, as the US was pre-1787). Instead, the US is a federal state, which means that the federal government and the constituent states have their own existences and loci of independent powers, and are in some sense co-equal. And every time states decided they were going to disagree with the federal government by force, it is not the states who won that argument.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  The constitution is ink on paper, it's not some magical document that compels people follow it by merely being in its presence like you seem to think. And clinging to one example from 150 years ago isn't a very convincing. If such a thing happened today the outcome would very clearly be different. A rag-tag group of untrained goat herders and farmers kicked out the largest military force in the history of the world using basic fighting equipment. This is all despite their invaders having tanks, helicopters, jets, satellite imagery, night vision, body armor, and 10:1 ratio of boots on the ground. The overwhelming majority of experienced combat veterans have been out of the US military for almost a decade and side themselves more with their state of residence than the federal government. There is an entire generation of Americans that have more combat experience than anyone currently in the armed forces. Why exactly do you think the federal government is going to do anything again? The deck is stacked against them. It's much better if the federal government peacefully relinquished power and gave it back to the states. The argument seems to be that anyone that disobeys the US federal government should be killed because it happened 150 years ago, therefore it will happen again the same way today.

jcranmer 3y ago

> The federal government exists at the behest of the states, not the other way around. That is very fundamentally not true--it is the reason the US Constitution exists at all in the first place. In the US, it is neither the case that states exist at the behest of the federal government (that would be true in a unitary state, which most US states are, incidentally), nor that the federal government exists at the behest of the states (that would be true in a confederation, as the US was pre-1787). Instead, the US is a federal state, which means that the federal government and the constituent states have their own existences and loci of independent powers, and are in some sense co-equal. And every time states decided they were going to disagree with the federal government by force, it is not the states who won that argument.

infamouscow 3y ago
The constitution is ink on paper, it's not some magical document that compels people follow it by merely being in its presence like you seem to think. And clinging to one example from 150 years ago isn't a very convincing. If such a thing happened today the outcome would very clearly be different. A rag-tag group of untrained goat herders and farmers kicked out the largest military force in the history of the world using basic fighting equipment. This is all despite their invaders having tanks, helicopters, jets, satellite imagery, night vision, body armor, and 10:1 ratio of boots on the ground. The overwhelming majority of experienced combat veterans have been out of the US military for almost a decade and side themselves more with their state of residence than the federal government. There is an entire generation of Americans that have more combat experience than anyone currently in the armed forces. Why exactly do you think the federal government is going to do anything again? The deck is stacked against them. It's much better if the federal government peacefully relinquished power and gave it back to the states. The argument seems to be that anyone that disobeys the US federal government should be killed because it happened 150 years ago, therefore it will happen again the same way today.