> What are they possibly going to do?
What are or what could they do? The latter is basically the same as what would be done to you and me running out and torching federal forest. Jail.
What are or what could they do? The latter is basically the same as what would be done to you and me running out and torching federal forest. Jail.
Realistically though if california wanted to fund and manage this i'm sure the feds would be extatic.
They do. But torching federal land might be somewhere the federal courts wouldn't find it.
Putting the matter of settled law to one side, I think the discussion here is about criminal liability, not civil.
He'd be the greatest folk hero we've made in a long time.
At some point politicians need to have some chutzpah.
Probably not. But you would see Calfire agents being arrested.
> some point politicians need to have some chutzpah
I agree and also asked the question [1]. As a political stunt, it might work for the individual. But it would also set a precedent most Californian voters probably wouldn't appreciate when it comes to federal land in red states. To say nothing of basically every Californian wildfire funding battle in D.C. being ex ante conceded for a few years.
Liberalism: the fear that someone, somewhere is doing something you disagree with.
But thanks for saying the quiet part out loud. If we want to make progress as a nation we have to literally love ourselves (in this case, our lungs) more than we hate those we disagree with.
You clearly haven't seen the political scene in the past decade. Both democrats and republicans have gone 180 on several issues. Democrats, supposedly the stalwarts of bodily autonomy, fully embraced mask/vaccine mandates. Election security (eg. hackable voting machines) went from being the concern of left-leaning techies to a rallying cry of election denying republicans. It's impossible to predict where alliances will lie based on a few principles.
What are they possibly going to do? Send in the army? oh no...