[mad_as_he$$]

A sheriff in Northern Idaho revoked the MOU’s with several fed agencies years ago. The Feds just cut off all money to the State. Game over.

[Still Thinking]

Yes, the other (and harder) half of the task is keeping the money in state that the fed would otherwise confiscate and then return with strings attached. In fact, many of the most egregious insults to federalism are from pogroms that are theoretically "voluntary" for the state to participate in.

Problem is, if you accept the game as defined by the feds the choices are allow their nose in your tent, or let them use funds generated by honest work in your state to fund only the most collectivist states. The game needs a rule change. See this thread.

[Still Thinking]

Daminit. I meant THIS thread.

[TLI]

A sheriff in Northern Idaho revoked the MOU’s with several fed agencies years ago. The Feds just cut off all money to the State. Game over.

Well, Idaho probably gets more fed money that it sends in but a lot of States that are signing onto this send in more money than they get back.

If the states that are throwing in on this get together and agree to cut off, oh, lets say fuel and road tax money to the feds and keep it in their respective States and distribute the money for road repair via direct private contractor bids, that would damn well get the feds attention. What would be more important to the feds? Some measure of control over Citizens owning guns, which they do anyway or keeping the cash cow of fuel and road taxes pumping money to dee-cee?

It always goes back to if the States really mean to make this stick, whether or not it is going to pizz off dee-cee, because brother it is GOING to pizz off dee-cee...