```
is not within the perimeters set by the constitution
```

```
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
```

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2018/05/04/how-much-money-states-make-cannabis-sales/#659b5b5f1811

here you go

note the

0$

and the other numbers

not bad

I won't argue against weed on tax recreation then.

https://tenor.com/view/elmo-shrug-gif-5094560

Yes, however that largely refers to non internal issues. Treaties, for example, are considered the "supreme law of the land." My view is that it's not the place of the Federal government as Article 6 specifically refers to "any federal laws that are made according to the Constitution"

It's not like the Supremacy Clause is actually used nowadays

The Federal Government has a thing called block grants

Technically alcohol isn't illegal in the U.S. Government level

Any state can set their alcohol age restriction to any age they want

But if you want 1/2 of your transportation spending to be paid for, you'll have to set it to 21 or higher.

And I would consider that a large issue, state dependency on the federal government. It's genius really, make the states dependent on you for money in order to control state laws

For example, when the Obama administration introduced the healthy lunch program. Any school district that refused to participate risked losing federal funding, with the only schools able to ignore this being privately funded ones. It's really a scummy thing to do.

"Agree with us on every issue or we will cut you off of the money source we made you dependent on"

However, I think if the federal tax rate decreased and local government became increasingly more reliant on local taxes, then people would care more about local politics and overall being more involved. People take notice as to how much they are paying in taxes, money speaks volumes in that sense.

It's like weening a baby off of it's bottle. It's hard at first, since the baby is dependent on it, but once you've done it the baby now has more choices in what it can eat (not perfect but just an analogy)

LOL

The real problem is that

the state has to depend on the federal government

that's how the federal government know it won't secede

If a state ever said nah

we dont need that block grant

we're good

the federal government is immediately on lockdown "holy shit this state is actually wanting to be independent"

The concept keeping our union together is that the federal government provides the external defense while the states manage their internal affairs, it's the best of both worlds. A state would have no desire to succeed simply because they have the ability to freely manage internal affairs as they still don't have the ability to provide adequate external defense

Actually

My issue is when that federal government decides "We're going to both provide this external defense and also have extensive internal affair management as well."

A state would have a desire to secede if they realize they can be financially independent.

That's how the Civil War even started

hoping that the southern states thought they were independent enough to secede from the union

that they didnt even need those stupid tariffs affecting them

Financially independent does not equal ability to externally defend

they didnt need those damn anti-slavery politics

The southern states believed they would be able to externally defend with their combined might, say, a *Confederacy of states* if you will

hold up

you do realize you need an economy