Hawaii just made history, becoming the first state in the nation to effectively ban dark money in elections. The new law takes a novel approach: rather than ...
But what is the enforcement mechanism for SCOTUS to make the states repeal these laws if they indeed pass them?
When it comes to the federal government, the answer to “what are they gonna do about it?” is basically always “They’re going to use violence.” Bush and Obama both raided cannabis dispensaries in legal states.
Granted I’m not sure exactly what they’d target in this case and it would create even more public backlash, so maybe there’s a chance that this change survives.
POTUS has already played that card and the American people saw right through it.
like how is SCOTUS going to force the 4th and 12th largest economies in the world (California & New York) to do anything? Especially if other states join them.
If they use Economic retribution Canada will step the fuck in and make exclusive trade deals.
IMO if states wanted to repel federal agencies, they could.
If by “you Californians” you mean “the Californians with money”, sure, but that’s not me.
He vetoed unemployment pay for striking workers and vetoed the decriminalization of psychedelics. You think he represents his constituents? Then you don’t know California lol
Fair point. What I mean is that I’m pretty sure this is a state legislature thing not a governor thing. Like yea he could veto it but I don’t think he would if the bill actually passed.
Newsome is a gormless coward but the state Congress is actually relatively progressive and has some amount of collective spine. Hell if that piss weasel Bianco or what’s his name win there’s a solid chance the California Congress would just impeach day one. The only reason Bianco probably isn’t in a cell is because the Sheriff’s have way too much leeway.
When it comes to the federal government, the answer to “what are they gonna do about it?” is basically always “They’re going to use violence.” Bush and Obama both raided cannabis dispensaries in legal states.
Granted I’m not sure exactly what they’d target in this case and it would create even more public backlash, so maybe there’s a chance that this change survives.
POTUS has already played that card and the American people saw right through it.
like how is SCOTUS going to force the 4th and 12th largest economies in the world (California & New York) to do anything? Especially if other states join them.
If they use Economic retribution Canada will step the fuck in and make exclusive trade deals.
IMO if states wanted to repel federal agencies, they could.
You could be right… but as a Californian, I’d never underestimate Gavin Newsom’s spinelessness.
Well I guess it’s up to you Californians to bend his spine in your favour.
https://www.ncsl.org/legislative-leaders/state-legislative-leaders
Regardless, not trying plays into the favour of the corporate fascists. What do we have to lose if this doesn’t work?
If by “you Californians” you mean “the Californians with money”, sure, but that’s not me.
He vetoed unemployment pay for striking workers and vetoed the decriminalization of psychedelics. You think he represents his constituents? Then you don’t know California lol
Fair point. What I mean is that I’m pretty sure this is a state legislature thing not a governor thing. Like yea he could veto it but I don’t think he would if the bill actually passed.
Newsome is a gormless coward but the state Congress is actually relatively progressive and has some amount of collective spine. Hell if that piss weasel Bianco or what’s his name win there’s a solid chance the California Congress would just impeach day one. The only reason Bianco probably isn’t in a cell is because the Sheriff’s have way too much leeway.