3 ms·
I think the existence of states and the need for 2/3 of the states to agree to change Constitution, with no chance for 2/3 of them to ever become red, is a good
by anovikov 2y ago
I think the existence of states and the need for 2/3 of the states to agree to change Constitution, with no chance for 2/3 of them to ever become red, is a good protection against authoritarianism, so people shouldn't worry.
Also, blue states are free to ignore Presidential decrees and laws accepted by Congress if their Supreme Courts see them as unconstitutional, and it will become very inconvenient to rule the country if many of the states start ignoring Washington, which they have full right to do.
- pjmlp 2y agoMaybe, then again, https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/civil-war-comes-to-the-west/ https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/civil-war-c... At the rate things are going after two months, who knows if in four years democratic elections are still a thing.
- spiderfarmer 2y agoIt also helps that the blue states have bargaining power. The typical red state gets back 19 cents more for each dollar sent to Washington than its blue-state friends. In other words, they subsidize the red states.
- injidup 2y agoBlue states should start putting tariffs on red states, threatening to annex them, steal their resources and disenfranchise their voters.
- nathanaldensr 2y agoThat's illegal. The Import-Export Clause of the US Constitution forbids it.
- jrs235 2y agoDoesn't mean they can't say it. They can create chaos and distraction too.
- autoexec 2y ago> is a good protection against authoritarianism, The increasing authoritarianism disagrees with you, and states can only ignore federal law to the extent that the federal government allows it. There has been an increase in defiance recently, but nothing stops the feds from storming in and enforcing their laws beyond it not being seen as worth doing.
- anovikov 2y agoBecause states have their own armies - the National Guard - it can be only done by military, not police, or even FBI/SWAT/whatever. That is, real military with tanks and fighter jets. A civil war. I seriously doubt military loyalty to Trump can be THAT high.
- autoexec 2y agoThe National Guard is only authorized in the first place by the US constitution, and every member of the National Guard swears an oath to support and uphold the US constitution against all enemies (foreign and domestic), and also to obey the president of the US. The idea that the national guard will rise up against their own commander in chief is a fantasy. We've already seen how it plays out when states raise an army against the federal government and it doesn't work out very well for them. Even if (and it's a big if) the military didn't agree with Trump specifically, they'll still largely believe in the country and the constitution. If the federal government does something terrible and unconstitutional enough that it becomes necessary for states to attack the federal government they will have abandoned anything resembling 'state's rights' and moved into lawless/oath-breaking civil war.
- dyauspitr 2y agoOnly if there are repercussions to ignoring the constitution. There are plenty of illegal initiatives currently happening with no one really physically stopping them from happening.
- cess11 2y agoDidn't protect against the Patriot/Freedom Acts, The CLOUD Act. Didn't protect against presidents actually ruling by decree. Didn't keep the US from illegally invading and occupying other countries, or put an end to its colonies and colonial practices.
- maxerickson 2y agoAt heart, law is a collective fantasy. If the fantasy breaks down, it doesn't matter what the paper says.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y agoTrump has SCOTUS in his pocket, who will enforce the constitution? Between the two, it's become an irrelevant document.