
Maryland Lawmakers Push to Cut Water, Electricity to Spy Agency Headquarters - glanotte
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/10/lights-out-for-nsa-maryland-lawmakers-push-to-cut-water-electricity-to-spy-agency-headquarters
======
rprospero
I hope this passes and gets swiftly struck down by the courts.

I hope it passes because I'm none too pleased with the NSA right now.

I hope it gets struck down because I'd hate for a precedent to be established
where cutting off utilities to your political enemies becomes an accepted
political tactic. It's 265 Kelvin outside right now and a disturbingly large
number of representatives in my state legislature would love to cut off the
heat at various LGBT advocacy groups.

~~~
graylights
I agree completely with your last point. I accept basic utilities are granted
a monopoly, but with that comes common access.

Maryland also doesn't want the NSA to leave since federal money is a huge part
of the state economy. Also denying state contractors from providing support
could cause massive disruptions. I imagine a lot of basic services at
government facilities overlap (custodians, food services).

Unfortunately the states don't really have any legitimate tools to punish the
federal agencies. I suppose since the NSA is under the DOD they could rollback
state benefits to military but that'd be very unpopular. They could also go NJ
style and close down roads outside their headquarters.

------
pmorici
I'd be shocked if this even came close to passing. NSA is directly and
indirectly easily the largest employer in the state of Maryland and on top of
that they fund probably at least several research labs and other research and
education initiatives at multiple universities in the state. Voting for this
would probably be political suicide for any politician frankly I'm surprised
any of them even had the cojones to introduce the bill.

[http://www.choosemaryland.org/factsstats/Documents/Major%20E...](http://www.choosemaryland.org/factsstats/Documents/Major%20Employers/2013/Major%20Employers%20Maryland%202013.pdf)

------
artificialidiot
In other news, several lawmakers receive a dossier of personal accomplishments
which they are reluctant to speak of.

~~~
tobylane
I hope one at the end of his political career, by choice, might push ahead
anyway. He could announce something like Yes, I did blow and hookers, five
years ago. But the NSA does this pressure for silence to so many more people.

~~~
thotpoizn
In today's political climate, there's more than a passing chance that a
politician who is _not_ at the end of his or her career could survive the
average scandal more or less unscathed, while the damage to the NSA would be
catastrophic.

I could easily imagine someone coming out with "Yes, I was banging the intern,
and her sister - that's totally true. What I did was wrong, and my wife may
never trust me again - we're going to work through that. However, check out
the incredible ramifications of this dossier being held over my head in order
to coerce me into silence!" \- dude might pull off the scandal, or he might
not - that's a D20 roll on his charisma mainly, but definitely a non-zero
chance. Over in the blue corner, on the other hand, you've got basically no
saving throw.

~~~
aptwebapps
I think this is more or less true. I also think that the NSA can wield plenty
of influence without resorting to something so risky. They have a lot of
support among the political elite. This administration has their back and I
bet the next one would too, whichever party wins in 2016.

------
tezzer
So a state government wants to enact legislation to harass a federal agency? I
doubt that will be an issue for very long.

Also, the article mentions Fort Meade uses as much electricity as the city of
Annapolis. Baltimore Gas and Electric and Howard County would have some choice
words about lost revenue.

------
TerraHertz
Emotionally appealing as it is, at this stage such legislation has about as
much chance of being implemented as for someone nuking all the NSA facilities
from orbit.

Though I actually wish that could happen. It's the only way to be sure.

You know, I can imagine a sequence of quite possible events over the next few
years, in which some other country (Russia for eg) could do exactly that, and
be hailed by a majority of Americans as a heroic savior of the American Ideal.

The NSA, and the various enabling entities behind this whole spying scandal,
are not psychologically capable of backing down. This conflict is only just
starting to warm up. It's going to get quite hot before resolving.

------
gremlinsinc
I'd like to see some sort of app created kindof like quora only anonymous --
but only for senators and congressmen. They can login and answer questions
asked by anyone such as "Has the NSA ever coerced you or another member of
congress to the best of your knowledge" \- then they could answer the question
anonymously w/out threat of being found out.

Or option 2 : Attention pulitzer prize seekers - do a documentary ask every
senator/congressmen you can get a hold of to answer that question - conceal
their information/identity if they want it conealed- but get a REAL answer to
that question.

------
fredgrott
A question about state rights..

Does a US State have the right to refuse to supply services to an entity
involved in illegal activities as defined by the US Constitution?

That is the real question here..

~~~
mjn
A bit of a complex question, depending on how you word it.

The federal government cannot require a state's agents to affirmatively assist
it in carrying out actions or duties that the state doesn't authorize. Broadly
that's known as the "anti-commandeering doctrine".

But a state also cannot specifically impede the federal government, for
example by harassing its agents or preventing their ability to operate. This
is true even if state agents claim to be enforcing state law in doing so,
because under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law (and
its enforcement) trumps contrary state law.

Neither doctrine has its full boundaries or interactions precisely clarified,
as you might guess.

~~~
DennisP
But the question regarded "an entity involved in illegal activities as defined
by the US Constitution," not as defined by state law.

Courts have differed, but some at least have said the NSA's actions are
unconstitutional and illegal. If, say, a state is in a federal court district
that decided that way, then perhaps the state could make a stronger claim that
denying services is legal.

