I join you in rage.

I don't trust the Supreme Court to uphold state's rights under these circumstances. But that also is just another example of how "originalist" interpretations are only used when politically convenient.

We are all Minnesotans now. (9/9)

In the Civil War, the Confederacy states had seceded and were no longer "common" to the United States. Minnesota and its people are still part of us.

Predictably, Trump will federalize the National Guard over Governor Walz's objection. And then we will have another novel litigation. (8/9)

But here's the biggest difference between the Civil War and states refusing federalizing their national guard when called to resist federal aggression: the federal government can't claim "common defense" when it is lifting arms against its own people and the states. (7/9)

The Civil War "litigated" the rights of states to withdraw from the Constitution. While arguably the seceding states were correct that ratifying the Constitution wasn't an irreversible blood oath on individual states, they were eventually "proved" wrong. Some contracts are forever. (6/9)

The Supremacy Clause states that when federal laws conflict with state laws, the federal laws have supremacy. But this is within the framework of enumerated powers, meaning that federal laws not within the limited nature of the constitution are of no effect and cannot overcome state powers. (5/9)

give the federal government the power to raise its own militia and form an army, but it's explicitly for a "common defense." The states retain plenary power, and the federal government does not have plenary power. (The plenary power thing is very well established.) (4/9)

... to make it clear that the states retained powers (see also, 10th amendment) and that the rights of individual people were of the highest concern.

The federal government is supposed to be limited, with enumerated powers.The corpus of the Constitution (Articles I and II) (3/9)

But with Walz calling the National Guard, there are a few things here that are suddenly relevant.

A "free State" probably refers to the individual states, not the federal government. The Bill of Rights was proposed and insisted upon by the states before ratification of the Constitution, (2/9)

Top two has always been stupid. But I think Dems see it as a way to prevent voter pique in a Gray Davis type situation resulting in another Republican governor.

The Democrats in California understand this and always consolidate candidates before election. That’s why they maintain a super majority. I see what you’re saying but this poll isn’t a good prediction of what will happen in the primary.

Since I have Annapolis-caused PTSD (not a joke), I will now have an entire day on which Dear Leader has made TV a trigger. If you shout "Go Navy" at me, I still respond, "Beat Army" like someone with Tourette's, before spiraling into a multi-day episode. It's the small cruelties.

https://aliciadearn.substack.com/p/a-court-of-fear-and-impunity