A time of reckoning
I recently read a history and a biography that are both centered on the American Revolution. It reminded me that for the founding fathers, the ineluctable reality was that they were risking their lives for their beliefs.
Josh Marshall has a piece up at TPM about Trump’s effort to extort control over the 2026 elections, notwithstanding that the Constitution explicitly gives control of elections to state. He argues that state officials may face existential pressure from Trump to cede that control to him.
“It is incumbent on those state officials not simply to “resist” but to refuse, to lean into the full power of their state sovereignty under the federal constitution. States have just as much authority to defend the integrity of the federal constitution and obedience to it as the White House or, for that matter, the Supreme Court. Not every question of what the U.S. Constitution means is up for genuine debate. This one, for example, is not. States are not only entitled to insist on their constitutional authority to administer federal elections — they are obligated to do so. That’s critical in part because when courts limit executive action, they often do so well after the fact. Those delays aren’t acceptable in cases like this. What’s required is a contest of executive authorities. These are fundamental questions of the constitutional order that transcend the decisions of courts.
“What does this mean in practice? It means that every illegal demand from the White House and Trump’s federal officers gets a flat no from state officials. If courts back Trump’s anti-constitutional demands, that doesn’t matter. If Trump and his appointees threaten illegal force against state officials, it’s incumbent on those state officials to refuse the threats and demands and accept the risks of illegal presidential violence. As I noted above, sovereignty and executive authority are a bit like possession being nine-tenths of the law. The states possess their sovereign authority and only they can really relinquish it. That is the deep well of state sovereignty and power state governments and state elected officials have at their disposal and need to lean into.”
Trump’s only rebuttal is to declare martial law and suspend the Constitution. Can he pull it off?
“The man and his White House have the stiff stench of a loser around them. He seemed sickly, aggrieved, weak and deranged. As we’ve noted again and again, you successfully achieve authoritarian takeovers in periods of relative popularity, not when you’re deeply unpopular and have a head of state in increasingly palpable state of physical and mental decline.”
Josh is optimistic that the 2026 elections will proceed normally. I wish I could share his optimism.
state sovereignty and Trump’s war against the Constitution
Josh Marshall has a piece up at TPM about Trump’s effort to extort control over the 2026 elections, notwithstanding that the Constitution explicitly gives control of elections to state. He argues that state officials may face existential pressure from Trump to cede that control to him.
“It is incumbent on those state officials not simply to “resist” but to refuse, to lean into the full power of their state sovereignty under the federal constitution. States have just as much authority to defend the integrity of the federal constitution and obedience to it as the White House or, for that matter, the Supreme Court. Not every question of what the U.S. Constitution means is up for genuine debate. This one, for example, is not. States are not only entitled to insist on their constitutional authority to administer federal elections — they are obligated to do so. That’s critical in part because when courts limit executive action, they often do so well after the fact. Those delays aren’t acceptable in cases like this. What’s required is a contest of executive authorities. These are fundamental questions of the constitutional order that transcend the decisions of courts.
“What does this mean in practice? It means that every illegal demand from the White House and Trump’s federal officers gets a flat no from state officials. If courts back Trump’s anti-constitutional demands, that doesn’t matter. If Trump and his appointees threaten illegal force against state officials, it’s incumbent on those state officials to refuse the threats and demands and accept the risks of illegal presidential violence. As I noted above, sovereignty and executive authority are a bit like possession being nine-tenths of the law. The states possess their sovereign authority and only they can really relinquish it. That is the deep well of state sovereignty and power state governments and state elected officials have at their disposal and need to lean into.”
Trump’s only rebuttal is to declare martial law and suspend the Constitution. Can he pull it off?
“The man and his White House have the stiff stench of a loser around them. He seemed sickly, aggrieved, weak and deranged. As we’ve noted again and again, you successfully achieve authoritarian takeovers in periods of relative popularity, not when you’re deeply unpopular and have a head of state in increasingly palpable state of physical and mental decline.”
Josh is optimistic that the 2026 elections will proceed normally. I wish I could share his optimism.
state sovereignty and Trump’s war against the Constitution
Back in the day, David Currie, a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that the Supreme Court did not have exclusive power over determining the constitutionality of governmental actions. Congress, the states, and various governmental officials, and citizens themselves (cf. the duty of military personnel to disobey unconstitutional orders)all are required to exercise constitutional judgment. Bordering on chaos? Perhaps. Certainly messy but necessary nonetheless.