Hacker News Reader

Comment by anovikov | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

Because 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.

The 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.

I agree. See my sister comment.

States do have their own State Guard. The California State Guard, for example, has a size of... around 900? Oh boy. Something tells me we should be prioritizing expansion of this force.

> I seriously doubt military loyalty to Trump can be THAT high.

While the military have sworn an oath to the constitution first and only the person of president to the extent that orders are lawful, the most recent opinion poll I found suggests 2:1 support in favour of Trump in the closest proxy I have for active military — I'll have to let everyone else argue how good a proxy "veterans" is, as I'm neither military nor Ami:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-...

When things are moving fast and chaotic folks are more likely to just go along and not stick/speak up or out. Their self preservation instincts will commit atrocities on others rather than them be punished for disobeying orders. Military members can't just walk away without facing punishment in prison. They have to decide at what point the orders handed them are too unethical or unconstitutional. They will slowly be boiling frogs per se and rationalize what they are doing. Most likely don't have the immediate and timely access to personal lawyers to help them decide. And if they resist they will likely spend time in jail until adjudicated. The current head of the military seems like he will ignore legal advice from others and prevent soldiers from obtaining it. The current path really is setting us up to inflict severe pain on our neighbors and countrymen that don't go along to get along with what's happening or voice dissent with it. God help us all.

https://lithub.com/resist-authoritarianism-by-refusing-to-ob...

It 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.

Blue states should start putting tariffs on red states, threatening to annex them, steal their resources and disenfranchise their voters.

That's illegal. The Import-Export Clause of the US Constitution forbids it.

Doesn't mean they can't say it. They can create chaos and distraction too.

Maybe, then again,

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.

What even if not? So Trump just stays, it doesn't harm the ability of blue states to defy Washington.

What did Washington do in Little Rock when Arkansas tried to defy integration laws?

Didn'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.

Only 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.

At heart, law is a collective fantasy. If the fantasy breaks down, it doesn't matter what the paper says.

Trump has SCOTUS in his pocket, who will enforce the constitution?

Between the two, it's become an irrelevant document.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com