Wonder how Indiana’s law would comport with the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause (basically how gay marriage came about) when a transgender person born outside of Indiana but has updated their birth certificate relocates to Indiana. Birth certification is a power reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. So, SCOTUS can’t set an interviening rule about how birth certificates are to be written if a dispute arises between the states on this.
That sounds like an argument for abolishing the fundamental parts of the united states.
It would be very bad thing if every governor and attorney general suddenly became as subject to Republican malfeasance as local mayors in Texas.
Also, there are some federal rules for what counts as special “birth certificates” to efficiently prove that a US citizen asking for a passport was born in the USA. But states don’t have to follow them if they choose, and depending on their reason could presumably go to court to get the federal rule adjusted or discarded.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-51/subpart-C
When I lived in the US, I didn’t find this sort of logic convincing.
If you want to address “Republican malfeasance”, the US is going to have to address corruption and criminality and take on the oligarchs. What you describe is going to happen anyway, institutions can protect you, until the day they don’t. This is something even centre-right Americans seem to find it difficult to understand (I still have friends from the US that I talk with).
And let’s be real, that’s very unlikely to happen in the next 20-30 years.
The US Congress should be abolished and replaced with a Parliament that is responsible to the people.
Parliamentary systems are substantially more susceptible to facism and nationalism than multicameral legislatures with a separate executive.
And they’re hardly proof against the sort of gerrymandering that makes the US House less responsive to general election voters than it should be.