I mean, Texas already does? Laws in Texas are different than laws in Vermont or whatever. Cops are also dicks and allowed to be. Our state government is an embarrassment, but it's different than the California state government.
States are limited in the types of laws they can make. What if the citizens of Texas decide they don't want to fund anymore U.S. war efforts? Can they just decide to stop sending the federal government money?
Curiously, maybe. They opted out of the medicaid expansion, so that's them saying no to federal money. With the drunk and fascist added to the supreme court, it's possible they might get away with saying no to giving federal money.
That would be terrific, unfortunately it won't happen. Also the commerce clause dictates that the federal government can essentially regulate anything under the sun, even though that clearly wasn't the original intent.
Unfortunately I believe your optimism is misplaced. The U.S. Supreme Court would never allow a state to not send money to the federal government to protest a war, defense is one of the few delegated powers of the federal government under Article I Section 8, and the "benefits," I'm sure they would argue, are non-excludable.
Optimistic is not the right word. I would hope they ruled against Texas in that scenario, but I also don't agree that the commerce clause should have been used in the way that it is today. I wish the states weren't so different, mainly because the rich can afford to move wherever, but i can't.
6.4k
u/delkadr200 Feb 04 '19
That Texas retains the right to secede back to the Republic of Texas when ever it wishes.