Problem is that right now he’s just talking. The states will have to wait for him to actually cause harm to prosecute him. Then the election will already be in chaos…
States should be able to seek security guarantees with valid reasoning, of which this rhetoric should qualify. That should be administerable without interference. For example, what if a state could work with foreign allies in times of dire — e.g., to secure distribution for mail ballots? Or perhaps if they could deputize their own labor forces for such things, while having funding secured for such possibilities?
Problem is that right now he’s just talking. The states will have to wait for him to actually cause harm to prosecute him. Then the election will already be in chaos…
States should be able to seek security guarantees with valid reasoning, of which this rhetoric should qualify. That should be administerable without interference. For example, what if a state could work with foreign allies in times of dire — e.g., to secure distribution for mail ballots? Or perhaps if they could deputize their own labor forces for such things, while having funding secured for such possibilities?
So if someone announces they’re going to burn down a shopping mall, the cops can’t stop them?