Could the blue states just ignore orders from the white house? Like if he orders them to round up illegal aliens? What could trump do about it?

  • LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    No, nothing Marjorie Taylor Greene says is remotely based in reality. There aren’t secret Jewish space lasers either.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        The president generally can’t order state employees to do something, he can only give orders to the federal employees.

        Usually states and local governments cooperate with the federal government, but sometimes they don’t. Notably, local governments in “sanctuary cities” stopped cooperating with immigration agents a while ago.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            The president controls a lot of funds that are sent to state and local governments. When they want to play hardball, they sometimes threaten to cut off funding. However, courts can sometimes restore the funds.

            And Trump being Trump, he might try to trump up federal charges (see what I did there?) against his opponents.

            • orclev@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              8 months ago

              Trump has never really cared much for laws, or reality, if either happen to get in the way of what he wants. The danger if Trump wins this year is that he’ll do exactly what he has said he will and go full fascist. We’re talking Hitler/Stalin style rounding up political opposition or anyone he deems undesirable and sending them off to gulags/concentration camps or just plain having them executed.

              In that regard it’s not a question of if the law allows Trump to do something, it’s a question of if anyone will be willing to stand up to stop him after he’s seized full control of the federal executive and judicial branches and has his GOP allies in control of the legislative.

              Worst case scenario it might come down to the military to stage an intervention and restore order, although at that point we’re effectively looking at a military coup even if the ultimate goal is restoring democratic rule and upholding the constitution which is a whole can and a half of worms better left unopened.

              • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                That is where I wonder. Who would do his bidding. He can take control of all the courts and heads of things like the FBI, but would the rank and file follow clearly illegal orders. Like would they pull the trigger on an illegal execution? I kind of doubt it. Witholding funding seems like something people would do at his order. But many of the blue states tend to have higher populations, or higher costs of living that make me assume they give more money to the feds in taxes than the feds give back. Could they somehow intercept that and use it to replace the missing funds?

                • orclev@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Many psychological experiments have shown that most people when ordered to do something by a person they perceive as an authority will follow those instructions even in cases where they feel the instructions are wrong. Most people just want to keep their head down and do their jobs. So yes, if Trump ordered them to, most rank and file would commit illegal actions. While I’d like to think most wouldn’t be willing to murder someone, we’ve seen ample evidence that there are enough that follow Trump that would be more than willing to for someone to do it, and most would be unwilling to stop them even if they weren’t willing to do it themselves.

                  We have seen all this before. Hitler didn’t start off by committing genocide, Stalin didn’t start by sending people to gulags. They start small with the things people are willing to do even if they feel it’s wrong and slowly escalate. Stripping rights turns into imprisoning, which turns into murdering, and each step of the way everyone either says “I’m not doing it myself, I’m not responsible” or “They deserve it because they’re a <minority> and I’m not”.

  • CM400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    9 months ago

    What could Trump do about it? It would be up to the courts, and both sides would have to argue the legality of the orders. It already happened with the “non Muslim ban Muslim ban” Trump tried to enact when he was president previously.

    A “national divorce” would mean civil war, and nobody wants that. Even the people that want that don’t really want the reality of a war on US soil.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      But the courts can’t force the blue states to do anything either really. Just ignoring the orders would mean that trump would need to start hostilities to make them do anything. And if I understand things right, the military isn’t allowed to get involved in a conflict inside the country. But maybe I am wrong there?

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Traditionally it comes down to the national guard. During desegregation the national guard was deployed to several southern states to enforce the law when southern states tried to ignore it. They’re not officially military so they don’t run afoul of the posse comitatus act, but they effectively serve the same function within US borders.

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          But why would they follow trump. As far as I know they are state funded, and answer to the governor normally. What would actually compell them?

  • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It’s not blue states and red states. It’s cities and just about everywhere else.

    In cities, people can’t so easily live with their heads up their asses and pretend their country is something else entirely.

    Are there any US cities that vote R as a majority?

    Edit: A few, but still. Where there are people, there is more liberalism:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_the_50_largest_cities_in_the_United_States

  • sanguine_artichoke@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    The phrase “national divorce” is irritating but that wasn’t a horrible article, I suppose. Rep. Greene’s idea of “separate by red states and blue states” is ludicrous. I do have to wonder who benefits from spreading such soundly idiotic ideas such as secession, “divorce” or civil war. It sure as fuck would not be the average person or people who benefit from the US being strong or functional. Republicans are suckers for it because, as usual, they have serious intellectual and emotional issues. Conservative states would be completely fucked by being forced to be a separate country. The change in global political power would also be massive and I can only imagine the effects that would have even if the transition was quick and painless, which I doubt.

    Anyway, there is not really any such thing as a “red state” or “blue state” and I miss the times before the media popularized those terms. They dramatically overstate the balance of population who support the one side in those states - a “red” state might be one where 60% of voters consistently back republicans, but calling the state “red” ignores the existence of everyone in the minority there. There are also the issues of voter suppression and unequal access to voting, which might make the state not so “red” if not present. So there isn’t any reasonable or fair way to partition the US and I wish people would stop taking such an incredibly stupid idea seriously.

    • dudinax@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Greene is Putin’s lap dog. And Putin is the only guy who would really benefit from a split. He benefits just from Greene talking about a split.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      The article was mainly to meet the requirements of the sub. My real question is in the body. What could trump actually do if blue states ingore his orders. And in this case we are talking about the governments of the states, not the people, so blue and red really exist in that way. It seems using the military is highly questionable with a lot of confusing laws and exceptions. Enough that I bet most military commanders would refuse to act without supreme court clarification. So what could trump really do? The blue states could just practice civil disobedience essentially.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Withholding federal funding has historically been the first and only necessary action for states that refuse to follow federal law

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    There is no such thing as a “national divorce”. What you are talking about is civil war. A civil war that Trump and his band of criminals wants to make happen. As of right now he couldn’t do anything about it because he’s not the president. I’m sure if it came down to it he would try to illegally deploy the military to achieve his nefarious goals, destroy democracy permanently, and plant himself in the position of dictator for life. He’s said that he plans to do as much right out in public.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t think the military would follow. They wouldn’t outright disobey, but they would stall with loopholes and what not. I read they were ordered to help with the rodney king riots, but when they were asked to do anything specific they denied the request based on legal questions about if they could. In the end they basically didn’t do much at all. Most of the brass are poloticians, they know how to play the game.

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    If America is headed for a civil war, it will not look like one. I think Robert Evans’ It Could Happen Here is probably the most realistic take.

    • cmbabul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Whenever I see any article about a potential second American civil war I can’t help but think, “Robert has already released a far better and more realistic version of this article”

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    If Trump wins the election, quite possibly. It honestly wouldn’t be irrational for blue states to just start ignoring federal bans on abortions - or for states to introduce stricter smog/clean air standards and sue their neighbors.