There’s a growing conversation on social media about a soft succession by Blue states. Here’s my two cents (now a nickel due to inflation).
The soft succession chatter is based on the reality that most Democratically-run states send more tax revenue to the feds than they receive from the federal government. At the same time, most Red states receive more federal dollars than they pay into federal coffers.
In other words, Blue states are subsidizing Red states to such an extent that the Red states and the Trump administration would quickly go broke if the Blue tax payment spigot were turned off.
Ironically, it was a conservative Supreme Court that enabled Red states to circumvent, weaken, or ignore federal laws they disliked, which now opens the door to soft succession by Blue states.
And precedent goes back to the years before the Civil War, when federal law (Fugitive Slave Acts) was roundly ignored by Northern states, making these federal laws “dead letters” amid active non-cooperation.
More recently, in Printz v. United States (1997), Justice Antonin Scalia ruled the feds cannot “issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers … to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” In Murphy v, NCAA (2018), Justice Samuel Alito ruled that federal law cannot put state legislatures under “the direct control of Congress,” via prohibitions or commands.
In other words, states cannot be forced to actively participate in federal enforcement. Without willing state cooperation, enforcement of federal law is practically unenforceable.
Trump is hoping that by declaring federal, national emergencies, he can bulldoze Blue state compliance via National Guard and military troops as enforcers.
I have heard that Blue state governors, attorneys general, and state legislative leaders are talking to each other about a united Blue front.
So get busy and formalize Blue resistance to an authoritarian takeover drive.
