Yes...

Screw "declaring"...Get a city council or state legislature to pass it...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Of course a state legislature has to pass it. And by passing that law, the legislature declares it so. I validate that. Now, is there a problem with that?

Yes, but that's ,NOT what pjohns said...

He said, "I suppose that the right could simply declare that Washington's tax laws do not apply within certain state borders..."

The "Right" is not the "Legislature"...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I think it's a matter of preference. It would be a cold day in Hell before I would think about entertaining anything the left declares, legislature or otherwise.

Perhaps I spoke too imprecisely.

What I intended to say was that state legislatures, dominated by the right wing, could presumably engage in whatever acts that the left may do (including acts of nullification).

__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007

That's what I understood also.

I didn't...

"Declaring" something (at least, to me), is MUCH different than passing legislation and having it signed...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Democrats are perfectly comfortable with having state and local governments pass laws to nullify Federal immigration laws declaring themselves sanctuaries. When state and local governments corrupt the normal order into a referendum on Federal law the distinction between proclamation and legislation is insignificant. Worse, the supposedly apolitical judiciary joins in the partisan insurrection.

__________________
If Democrats were confident their nominee actually received more than 80 million votes they wouldn't have more troops occupying Washington, DC than Lincoln had defending the city during the Civil War. Not Joe Biden, Kim Jung Biden.