Actual secession may happen but it’s problematic because your SCOTUS consistently rules that the union is indestructible and the only way out is revolt or consent. Though arguably unilateral secession is more possible once the *union ( constitution) no longer exists. And risks hot civil war.
Why would I a blue states governor give any credence to a supreme court who has told me that a president is effectively above the law for a ruling about checks on power ?
In fact, you are right. OTOH the biggest question for governors is what happens after they declare actual secession- that’s a huge step. Is it hot civil war? Full on occupation? They’re way outmatched militarily.
Soft secession is the only way it works.
They have invalidated themselves and do not have the ability to selectively impose power restrictions emanating from a notion of a constitution which they themselves have tranpled into dust. Its time to stop pretending we need to rely on institutions when a facist has usurped their power
Again, true. But the question governors weigh is whether “soft” secession gets results and if not, can they roll the dice and declare official unilateral secession. In this, they’d consider 2 things - first, is the country ready for hot war and do they even have a chance? And- what happens next.
Because AFAIK blue states do not have anything like adequate military defence.
Even if we assume some chance of winning a civil war- what is winning? It’s definitely not a return to status quo. It’s probably successful secession.
I think its that any state whose population votes sufficiently ie above 66 pct that this regimes using their funds for means that are discordant and harmful to its citizens has the authority vested in themselves and the decalration of infependence to cut all payments of taxes (taxation without rep)