Maryland Lawmakers Push to Cut Water, Electricity to Spy Agency Headquarters(usnews.com)
usnews.com
Maryland Lawmakers Push to Cut Water, Electricity to Spy Agency Headquarters
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/10/lights-out-for-nsa-maryland-lawmakers-push-to-cut-water-electricity-to-spy-agency-headquarters
8 comments
I agree completely with your last point. I accept basic utilities are granted a monopoly, but with that comes common access.
Maryland also doesn't want the NSA to leave since federal money is a huge part of the state economy. Also denying state contractors from providing support could cause massive disruptions. I imagine a lot of basic services at government facilities overlap (custodians, food services).
Unfortunately the states don't really have any legitimate tools to punish the federal agencies. I suppose since the NSA is under the DOD they could rollback state benefits to military but that'd be very unpopular. They could also go NJ style and close down roads outside their headquarters.
Maryland also doesn't want the NSA to leave since federal money is a huge part of the state economy. Also denying state contractors from providing support could cause massive disruptions. I imagine a lot of basic services at government facilities overlap (custodians, food services).
Unfortunately the states don't really have any legitimate tools to punish the federal agencies. I suppose since the NSA is under the DOD they could rollback state benefits to military but that'd be very unpopular. They could also go NJ style and close down roads outside their headquarters.
a disturbingly large number of representatives in my state legislature would love to cut off the heat at various LGBT advocacy groups.
Can you cite any specific instance of a representative in your legislature threatening such action or expressing a desire to be able to do something like that?
Can you cite any specific instance of a representative in your legislature threatening such action or expressing a desire to be able to do something like that?
Note that cutting off utilities access to another branch of the government is different, legally, from cutting off access to an individual or private organization. I hope this stands and sets a precedent as a protest tactic by state and local governments.
I'm pretty sure that wouldn't fly.
This is one of the rare ways in which the two-party system is actually beneficial. They disagree so much, that when they actually do agree, it's serious business.
Taking down the NSA is a move that has bipartisan support. Shutting down LGBT advocacy groups in the same way would cause massive backlash from the left.
This is one of the rare ways in which the two-party system is actually beneficial. They disagree so much, that when they actually do agree, it's serious business.
Taking down the NSA is a move that has bipartisan support. Shutting down LGBT advocacy groups in the same way would cause massive backlash from the left.
Would you feel different about the tactic if the courts clearly said that what the NSA is doing is illegal...and it kept doing it anyway?
I'd be shocked if this even came close to passing. NSA is directly and indirectly easily the largest employer in the state of Maryland and on top of that they fund probably at least several research labs and other research and education initiatives at multiple universities in the state. Voting for this would probably be political suicide for any politician frankly I'm surprised any of them even had the cojones to introduce the bill.
http://www.choosemaryland.org/factsstats/Documents/Major%20E...
http://www.choosemaryland.org/factsstats/Documents/Major%20E...
In other news, several lawmakers receive a dossier of personal accomplishments which they are reluctant to speak of.
I hope one at the end of his political career, by choice, might push ahead anyway. He could announce something like Yes, I did blow and hookers, five years ago. But the NSA does this pressure for silence to so many more people.
In today's political climate, there's more than a passing chance that a politician who is not at the end of his or her career could survive the average scandal more or less unscathed, while the damage to the NSA would be catastrophic.
I could easily imagine someone coming out with "Yes, I was banging the intern, and her sister - that's totally true. What I did was wrong, and my wife may never trust me again - we're going to work through that. However, check out the incredible ramifications of this dossier being held over my head in order to coerce me into silence!" - dude might pull off the scandal, or he might not - that's a D20 roll on his charisma mainly, but definitely a non-zero chance. Over in the blue corner, on the other hand, you've got basically no saving throw.
I could easily imagine someone coming out with "Yes, I was banging the intern, and her sister - that's totally true. What I did was wrong, and my wife may never trust me again - we're going to work through that. However, check out the incredible ramifications of this dossier being held over my head in order to coerce me into silence!" - dude might pull off the scandal, or he might not - that's a D20 roll on his charisma mainly, but definitely a non-zero chance. Over in the blue corner, on the other hand, you've got basically no saving throw.
I think this is more or less true. I also think that the NSA can wield plenty of influence without resorting to something so risky. They have a lot of support among the political elite. This administration has their back and I bet the next one would too, whichever party wins in 2016.
But what if they are threatening relatives or other persons you care about? There might be choices where you are not the (only) bearer of the consequences.
During youthful age and learned important life lessons from it. Mainly that we need to be tough on people that do same nowadays.
Pass that peace pipe senator, will ya?
Pass that peace pipe senator, will ya?
So a state government wants to enact legislation to harass a federal agency? I doubt that will be an issue for very long.
Also, the article mentions Fort Meade uses as much electricity as the city of Annapolis. Baltimore Gas and Electric and Howard County would have some choice words about lost revenue.
Also, the article mentions Fort Meade uses as much electricity as the city of Annapolis. Baltimore Gas and Electric and Howard County would have some choice words about lost revenue.
[deleted]
Emotionally appealing as it is, at this stage such legislation has about as much chance of being implemented as for someone nuking all the NSA facilities from orbit.
Though I actually wish that could happen. It's the only way to be sure.
You know, I can imagine a sequence of quite possible events over the next few years, in which some other country (Russia for eg) could do exactly that, and be hailed by a majority of Americans as a heroic savior of the American Ideal.
The NSA, and the various enabling entities behind this whole spying scandal, are not psychologically capable of backing down. This conflict is only just starting to warm up. It's going to get quite hot before resolving.
Though I actually wish that could happen. It's the only way to be sure.
You know, I can imagine a sequence of quite possible events over the next few years, in which some other country (Russia for eg) could do exactly that, and be hailed by a majority of Americans as a heroic savior of the American Ideal.
The NSA, and the various enabling entities behind this whole spying scandal, are not psychologically capable of backing down. This conflict is only just starting to warm up. It's going to get quite hot before resolving.
I'd like to see some sort of app created kindof like quora only anonymous -- but only for senators and congressmen. They can login and answer questions asked by anyone such as "Has the NSA ever coerced you or another member of congress to the best of your knowledge" - then they could answer the question anonymously w/out threat of being found out.
Or option 2 : Attention pulitzer prize seekers - do a documentary ask every senator/congressmen you can get a hold of to answer that question - conceal their information/identity if they want it conealed- but get a REAL answer to that question.
Or option 2 : Attention pulitzer prize seekers - do a documentary ask every senator/congressmen you can get a hold of to answer that question - conceal their information/identity if they want it conealed- but get a REAL answer to that question.
A question about state rights..
Does a US State have the right to refuse to supply services to an entity involved in illegal activities as defined by the US Constitution?
That is the real question here..
Does a US State have the right to refuse to supply services to an entity involved in illegal activities as defined by the US Constitution?
That is the real question here..
A bit of a complex question, depending on how you word it.
The federal government cannot require a state's agents to affirmatively assist it in carrying out actions or duties that the state doesn't authorize. Broadly that's known as the "anti-commandeering doctrine".
But a state also cannot specifically impede the federal government, for example by harassing its agents or preventing their ability to operate. This is true even if state agents claim to be enforcing state law in doing so, because under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law (and its enforcement) trumps contrary state law.
Neither doctrine has its full boundaries or interactions precisely clarified, as you might guess.
The federal government cannot require a state's agents to affirmatively assist it in carrying out actions or duties that the state doesn't authorize. Broadly that's known as the "anti-commandeering doctrine".
But a state also cannot specifically impede the federal government, for example by harassing its agents or preventing their ability to operate. This is true even if state agents claim to be enforcing state law in doing so, because under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law (and its enforcement) trumps contrary state law.
Neither doctrine has its full boundaries or interactions precisely clarified, as you might guess.
But the question regarded "an entity involved in illegal activities as defined by the US Constitution," not as defined by state law.
Courts have differed, but some at least have said the NSA's actions are unconstitutional and illegal. If, say, a state is in a federal court district that decided that way, then perhaps the state could make a stronger claim that denying services is legal.
Courts have differed, but some at least have said the NSA's actions are unconstitutional and illegal. If, say, a state is in a federal court district that decided that way, then perhaps the state could make a stronger claim that denying services is legal.
I hope it passes because I'm none too pleased with the NSA right now.
I hope it gets struck down because I'd hate for a precedent to be established where cutting off utilities to your political enemies becomes an accepted political tactic. It's 265 Kelvin outside right now and a disturbingly large number of representatives in my state legislature would love to cut off the heat at various LGBT advocacy groups.