They have as much authority as they can get away with claiming. Since the president is brazenly defying laws, courts, and the constitution, there’s no reason states shouldn’t push for more autonomy, even if that autonomy may be legally contentious.
But really that’s beside the point. If the state government is too afraid to take a meaningful stand on this, they should focus their attention on other pressing issues instead of passing meaningless laws that make people feel better without materially changing anything.
I gotta ask, are you from the west side or east side of the state? Because being over on the east side, the people more closely align with Idaho. I see way too many "Trump" signs for what was the only state to lean more blue this election (but only because the west side pulled us that hard).
22 Comments
ObtuseDoorFrame@lemm.ee · 51 pts · 1y
Sounds like a good law. The comments on the article are absolutely unhinged.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 1y
My personal favorite.
Entheon@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 1y
I should have believed you
oxysis@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 26 pts · 1y
Wish me luck I am too curious about how delulu people are
Edit: That was a mistake, that is weapons grade stupidity
cm0002@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1y
I think my ad blocking somewhere broke their comment section, don't get to see the MAGAt craziness today ig :(
Deceptichum@quokk.au · 11 pts · 1y
SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 28 pts · 1y
From the…comments?
Gold Jerry—gold!
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Should be "roundtine".
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 22 pts · 1y
So is this purely performative or is there some case where this would somehow be relevant?
Drusas@fedia.io · 16 pts · 1y
The state only has so much authority.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 18 pts · 1y
They have as much authority as they can get away with claiming. Since the president is brazenly defying laws, courts, and the constitution, there’s no reason states shouldn’t push for more autonomy, even if that autonomy may be legally contentious.
But really that’s beside the point. If the state government is too afraid to take a meaningful stand on this, they should focus their attention on other pressing issues instead of passing meaningless laws that make people feel better without materially changing anything.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
But meaningless laws that only make people feel better is all poloticians know how to do.
Nougat@fedia.io · 14 pts · 1y
So what happens when Little t mobilizes troops to go to Washington State? Does Washington National Guard fight them?
Drusas@fedia.io · 21 pts · 1y
I think they would. There's a lot of regionalism, if that's a word, here in Washington. We are Washingtonians first.
Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1y
I gotta ask, are you from the west side or east side of the state? Because being over on the east side, the people more closely align with Idaho. I see way too many "Trump" signs for what was the only state to lean more blue this election (but only because the west side pulled us that hard).
Drusas@fedia.io · 2 pts · 1y
I'm in western Washington. The Cascades are a surprisingly accurate divide between cultures in the state.
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 1y
WA has a state guard (the other half the second amendment) so they could just move them to there
badbrainstorm@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
Sounds like a good idea. Not that it'll stop them when they declare the insurrection act
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
And it begins.
TipRing@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1y
The article specifies that Montana and Texas already do this, so it's unlikely to cause much of a stir.
Drusas@fedia.io · 10 pts · 1y
It's just our governor and legislature trying to protect us. I'm glad to be in Washington.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
But it isn't. It just peice of puff legislation. It has an exemption for if the pres mobilizes the troops.
jagged_circle@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 1y
But how will you be able to call in the National Guard to commit a massacre of workers on strike?