I'm not all that concerned about USAG Barr threatening to go after states that won't

[no_hypocrisy]

re-open upon demand.

First, 10th Amendment. If the law or policy isn't specifically mentioned in the Federal Constitution, then the states have the discretion to follow -- or not follow -- that law or policy.

Next, there ARE better attorneys out there (with staff) than William Barr. Bluster takes you only so far; then you'd better be able to make the better argument.

Finally, like a bad Poker player, Barr showed his hand to the Table. Right now in a multitude of (blue) states, the staffs of state AG's are working on legal memos with comprehensive research, to be ready for federal intrusion by the USAG. They don't see his words are empty rhetoric. They will be prepared.

[maptap22]

1. I agree.

It is just another trump bluff.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Welcome to DU!

[maptap22]

11. Thanks...

I have actually been on here for years but I don't comment much.

It is nice to talk to actual people and not just my furry friends.

[MyOwnPeace]

3. It was just a show of bluster........

AG Barr needs to do that every so often - its part of his lifting his head out of IQ45's ass for an occasional breathe of air.....

[ProfessorGAC]

4. Well, There's Superiority

A state can't decide to allow federal crimes to be legal, 10th or not.
But, reopening is not a matter of law, so as you said, this is a bluff.
Nice use of resources when many courthouses are closed, isn't it?
Proof that becoming AG is more about politics than scholarly grasp of the law.

[The Magistrate]

15. My Guess Would Be, Sir

That any action attempted would be rooted in the Commerce Clause, the line being that state restrictions interfere with interstate commerce. This has been read very broadly since the New Deal, and pressing against state restrictions might have precedential support. It is important to remember these people never stop this side of the grave, and this could be seen by Federalist Society types as a sort of win/win affair. While overturning the Governors would be a vindication of the cheap thug's dictates, upholding the Governors might provide precedents for restricting wide application of the Commerce Clause, which in future could provide support for future efforts to restrict the reach of Federal law and regulation, on which many things, like work-place safety and even a Federal minimum wage rely.

Since the Constitutional grant of power is to Congress specifically, it is not clear to me the Executive has standing to bring the action. Some specific law would have to be found the Governors could be held to be acting contrary to, which an action could vindicate. Or perhaps a bloc of senators might be the plaintiffs. In Wisconsin legislators are bringing suit in state court against the Governor, citing state law. Where there are Republican legislatures and Democratic Governors, suits might be brought similarly, and attempts made to get the matter into Federal courts, with Barr enlisted in aid should that occur.

It is not a totally toothless threat, though I do not expect much to come of it. Courts will be likely to dawdle, and corpses will pile up where restrictions are being relaxed in sufficient number to put the lie to claims the Governors have no legitimate basis for exercising state powers of public health and policing.

"Defeat of a hated enemy is something to be for."

[Buckeyeblue]

5. The only thing they can do is file in federal court for a constitutional violation

If it went to the SC I don't see how they wouldn't say that there was a compelling state interest.

[The Wizard]

6. The fly in the ointment

is the Mediocre (formerly Supreme) Court.

[True Blue American]

7. Scarborough called Barr a fixer

No longer n Attorney!

Pelosi coming upi!

Kerry did a great job talking about how Leaders lied to us about Vietnam. Now it is climate change and the pandemic.

[Chainfire]

8. You must remember

The 10th amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means.

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Could be. And unless the USSC agrees to hear arguments on an emergency basis,

the Barr vs. The States can drag out past January of next year.

[zonemaster]

10. They could withhold Federal funding designated for states - roads, Medicare, SSI payments, etc...

...until a state complies. They don't seem to have much respect for law, propriety or decency. They're fine with stealing ventilators from states, for God's sake, so the Rubicon was crossed long ago.

[Chainfire]

12. Those of us who have deep roots in the Deep South

may be more cognizant of the fact, than others, of the fact that state rights sailed in 1865. It was one of the unanticipated consequences of the sin of slavery. States today have the rights that the federal courts grant them; no more.

[dmr]

13. Wouldn't that be a Congressional decision?

Specifically from the House?

Barr or Trump have no say, thankfully.

[zonemaster]

14. For appropriations, yes.

Once appropriated, however, execution of the payments is something over which Congress has very limited direct control, I believe. About all they can do is investigate why the money isn't getting to where it's supposed to.