kari lake lays down the threat

[solarbird]

Let's talk about Kari Lake's statement here, because she's talking about what they want to do: hold the union hostage:

We need some strong governors to get in there and push back against the Federal government, remind them who created the Federal government, it was the States... not the other way around. And we are going to start proving to them that we are sovereign. We are not serfs of the Federal government. Especially not this Federal government with this illegitimate president.

There's a key point in here she's right about: the states, in our constitutional system, are ultimately sovereign.

At least, on paper.

The states can, at their discretion and without support from the Federal government, call a congress of the states at any time.

And they can do whatever the hell they want while they're at it - at least, in terms of what they create. It's not law yet, but it can be. Whatever they come up with goes back to the states as a whole for approval.

And in theory, once enough states adopt it, it becomes the new constitution - the new law of the land.

Nothing about any of that says there has to be a popular vote.

Because yeah, the constitution says sovereignty lies with the people, but in practical terms, it lies with the several states. Which means the state legislatures.

Like Wisconsin's, where Republicans can't be removed from power even if they lose the popular vote by 20 points.

Last time this happened, we got a whole new Constitution. And it was different enough that states just left the old Union (under the Articles) and joined the new Union (under the Constitution).

And some of the states that didn't, at least at first, sent ambassadors to that new Union. You know. To keep in touch and keep their options open as they make the decisions they need to make.

Now, some people might say "this is different, this constitution doesn't allow secession, it's permanent."

So were the Articles. And unlike our current Constitution, they were explicitly so.

As for secession, well, that was decided with guns. Might be again too. Also might not.

But this wouldn't even be secession, necessarily. States refusing to recognize a new, "illegitimate" constitution? That's whole new ball of wax, and I just outlined how that went last time. And that... that's precedent.

You want to engineer a national divorce, this is how to do it.

Or you just threaten it seriously enough and be willing to go hard enough to that line to get your demands met - which is to say, everything you'd get in your Christian ethnostate, applied to the whole country.

Now I'm sure as hell not going to go along with that, because I literally can't. Their Christian ethnostate makes me, as a person, illegal again. They're trying to make us all illegal again in the current framework, there's no question they'd demand it in any new one.

But there are big, serious, enough-money-to-be-immune money players who will not want that kind of separation, and they'll do everything in their extraordinarily extensive power to prevent it.

The authoritarians should know that very well, and consider it a card in their deck.

So that's what we're dealing with here. The threat, the strategy, the goal.

Would they cross that line? Would they call that convention, write up that Christian Nationalist country?

Probably. I think so, anyway. Because my entire life, they have done nothing but double-down, and I don't see them ever stopping on their own.

After all - why would they? God is, they are quite sure, entirely on their side. And everyone else is quite literally either a tool or an out-and-out follower of Satan.

I know that because they say so. They always have. All you have to do is listen to them.

And that's why they must be stopped, because they will never stop on their own. There will be no accord, no compromise, no middle ground, because they will not permit one, because to them, compromise is literally a deal with the devil, and they will. not. have that.

That's what Kari Lake is alluding to here. Her movement hears her. They know what she's saying, because they say it amongst themselves.

That's what's at stake in the state races - and also, that's your language lesson for today.

Comments

[kathmandu]

Thank you for this exegesis. I would have just thought "sovereign" was a dogwhistle for "sovereign citizen".

[solarbird]

Yeah, no, not this time.

Texas is intending to lead the charge. At least, last I heard.

[kathmandu]

Five years ago I would have been I Attempt to Disbelieve about dissolving the Union. Now (ever since Trump stole our masks and gloves and they formed the Western States Compact to work around him) I'm a lot more able to face it.

Right there with you on not EVER yielding to Christianist supremacism.

[mme_n_b]

Ok, but - why not let them secede? Do we really need Wisconsin that much? It's a pretty boring place. Nice forests and lakes, true, but overall meh. Let it be a foreign country, accept refugees, rejoice in the brain drain.

[solarbird]

Let me state again: Wisconsin is not a democracy, because the GOP cannot be voted out.

This last came up in 2018, when Democrats won a 7-point majority in the popular vote, and the GOP kept a supermajority in the legislature. Then when they lost the governorship, they removed all the governor's powers that they could with the intent of giving them back the next time they had one of their own in place.

Wisconsin is not a particularly red state. It's very purple. But the GOP own it lock, stock, and barrel, even when they do not have majority support, thanks to all they've done to make voting them out functionally impossible.

That's why Wisconsin is the model, the plan, the goal. They've followed - as best they can - the Orban plan, from Hungary.

Many "red" states aren't actually red. They're purple or blue with oppressed opposition parties. And I'm not into letting them kill all the queers in their states either.

As a lifeboat measure, I'd go along with it. If we've lost and are just trying to defend ourselves, fine. Under any other circumstances, though - fuck that.

This is literally the reason I'm not a Cascadian separatist. This right here. Because I'm not willing to write 50-60 million people off - the ones they'll lord over and oppress - without a fight.

[mme_n_b]

As an emigrant I find it hard to feel sympathy for people who agree to be oppressed when the only price of not being oppressed is moving across the state lines, but I realize that my point of view is significantly influenced by survivor's error.

[solarbird]

I was able to move out at 15.

That is EXTREMELY ATYPICAL, and while there was a lot of real work in it, I also got very lucky.

Very, very, VERY few children get that kind of lucky. And more queer kids get born every day, in numbers, to the most fundamentalist and heterosexual of families.

Just for, you know, very personal example.

You might keep that in mind.

[mme_n_b]

15 is early, and unlike me you're really good at keeping survivor bias under control. But frankly, the only other solution I see is gaining sufficient non-Republican (doesn't have to be Democrat) control of enough states to amend the Constitution or of the Supreme Court. Both are likely to take a century at best.

[conuly]

It's not as easy to move if, say, you need to stay close to a frail family member who can't be easily moved, or if all your assets are tied up in real estate, or if you need specialty medical care that's best available where you are, or if you, need to stay close to your divorced ex and your kids....

[mme_n_b]

See above "as an emigrant".
We left a country to which return was dangerous at a time when long-distance calls cost more per minute than we were likely to earn in an hour.

[conuly]

Yes, I saw that. I simply disagree with you. Your personal experience does not negate the experience of other people who find they can't leave, even if you think their circumstances are comparatively easier than yours were.

[mme_n_b]

They can. They do not want to, because the price is too high. Their lack of resources is tragic, but not necessarily as tragic as continuing results of letting Republicans make decisions at federal level would be.

[conuly]

Again, just because YOU could do something, that does not ipso facto mean that everybody else can do the same thing.

[mme_n_b]

I think your "they can't do this because they'd lose real estate" and mine "they can do this, and the price is losing their holdings in real estate" are essentially the same.

[conuly]

That is literally not what I said, and you know it. I mentioned that as one possible reason people might not be able to leave, and then listed lots of other possible reasons. There is absolutely no way you skipped to that one and didn't see the others. Either reply in good faith or don't waste my time.

[mme_n_b]

I can substitute any other reason you named, but this one did seem somewhat ridiculous and there's no reason to make multiple similar statements. That said, I find it a bit too easy to go for the ridiculous reason before any of the others and to interpret your last reply as being overly emotional, which is a sign that I'm taking this too personally and should stop.

[conuly]

Those lakes comprise a significant portion of USA freshwater reserves. Even if we think selfishly, and ignore the people who would be dragged into secession against their will, we can't afford to.

[mme_n_b]

Now this is a great reason :)

[wrog]

There's a key point in here she's right about: the states, in our constitutional system, are ultimately sovereign.

Wait, I thought we settled this back in 1865. Do they really think this is going to turn out better a second time around?

[solarbird]

What was settled in 1865 was unilateral secession isn't going to happen, and that was settled by guns. None of that changed anything about the Constitutional ability of the states to hold a congress of the states and do literally whatever they wanted at that congress.

Also, there's the unilateral part - a state could (in theory) still leave the union if the Federal government and the state both agreed to it. IIRC (and I may not, it's been a while) that even came up during the civil war (or maybe the lead-up to it) - this was about unilateral secession, not bilateral.