As stated, on paper yes this is true, however the feds and the executive branch specifically have the ability to supra-legally harass and roadblock localities by doing things like revoking or delaying federal funding as leverage or blackmail.

Of course these things would be "illegal" but reaching court decisions can take years and in the meantime a locality might be starved out and give in to pressure.

Others have mentioned good points. I'd like to also add that a completely stagnant legislature that literally can't get anything done unless republicans agree on it to start with -- and magnified greatly by an ineffectual democrat party that concedes virtually everything just for instance to approve a temporary spending bill against their own interests as a party and as individuals -- altogether it should say a LOT.

Especially wrt how you suggested "polarizing" legislation will just get filibustered, as polarizing doesn't cut it, and the democrats in congress somehow have this magical ability to mostly do nothing and yet be terrified of doing nothing. Besides, if they do nothing, the republicans still essentially act with impunity. They're already dipping their toes in dark waters by ignoring some court orders and rulings. All while following the playbook of accusing others of what they do far more/worse, but never allowing even a drop of guilt to weigh on them.

Perhaps this is all to say that congressional gridlock hardly fixes any of the damage, can be exploited politically, and won't undo the sort of damage that be done even just in the remaining ~2 years before midterms. And at this point people are getting seriously afraid about what'll happen if they don't like the outcome of those midterms, let alone the next presidential election.

I agree greatly though about what you note with states' separation of powers meaning particularly bold governors+legislature can resist a lot of federal authority.

It's the one solid fallback, but even then it's got some limitations. Look at a state like California that subsidizes conservative states by paying more in taxes to the federal government than it receives in funding.

How long until people from outside the Trump bloc start questioning why they're stuck saddled with their baggage, which produces next to no value for them but is impairing their political freedom, and which extracts tax money to be spent against their political and popular interests?

How long until federal interests might simply decide to retaliate against those states' attempts to bypass and ignore them? Especially if they start making accusations of rebellion, secessionism, "radical leftism" or some other senile babble.

I disagree with the slim majority statement. Maybe on paper that's true, but in terms of wield-able power, I think the budget and the bureaucratic purge proves that we are functioning as a one party state, maybe somewhat reluctantly, but that can clearly be overcome. I think there is fear of causing rebellion, but I don't think there is fear of consequences from the other party. I don't think there is any internal stability to the other party's resistance, nor do they have an ideological foundation on which to stabilize themselves and resist from.

I disagree with your point about the filibuster. Talk of filibuster is important because of Mr Smith goes to Washington and its social history. It is symbolic only. As a tool of checking power it has no teeth other than to manage political spectacle and be a talking point in public opinion. I think it's main purpose is to support people's denial about power dynamics. They don't want to look as powerless as they are so they must reference a "weapon" they never intend to use. It is bluster. It is clear democrats are all bark and no bite and using it as a theoretical weapon. If they used it but failed to achieve a meaningful outcome, that would break people's denial and likely be the cause of civil unrest because everyone else will come to the conclusion that the DNC will absolutely not save them and we are on our own to fight or run. Jon Stewart's rebuke of Schumer says everything that needs to be said about that, IMHO.

I will give you the senatorial votes for removing judges. That is at least a meaningful check on power. I can't deny that, and it does invalidate my absolutist statement. I would caution that positions of enforcement are being replaced by loyalists, and as that happens congress and the judicial branch will have less and less power. I am also not sold the the judiciary is functioning. The administration is claiming individual judges are trying to stop actions, when those judges are ruling that it is not them but the law that is stopping those actions. The fact that the GOP can get a message about activist judges out, but the DNC can't meaningfully "convince mom and dad," that law is under threat, that means that there is much much more to party power than what is on paper alone.

I also accept that state power does invalidate my absolutist statement, to a degree. Universities are cowing to the federal government and states are unable to protect them. Structurally AFAIK, taxes are taken directly from citizens rather than paid by the citizens through the state which means that the states ability to check federal power is structurally quite weak. States also generally do not have strong political power, as in the type that flows from the barrel of a gun, due to unified federal military. Police forces have been a target for right wing infiltration for a long time. That thin blue line flag is nearly synonymous with conservatism and unchecked power, I would almost call it a paramilitary symbol, it clearly represents an insular exclusionary culture and seems to represent an anti-regulation, but pro-power standpoint, that flag represents that police are an "us" in an "us vs them" situation. Time and time again has proven that police's primary purpose is to protect the aristocracy and their assets anyway.

I also think there is a meaningful and relevant distinction between non-enforcement of federal law, and enforcement of law, federal or state. Fighting corruption requires active enforcement mechanisms, it's not enough to not enforce.

In an extreme case, in the tax example, which represents real actual physical power, if states went to ADP and said you will stop withholding federal income taxes/send federal income tax to the state, you potentially have a police/police or police/military face-off.

I agree that it's much more grey here than the black and white I presented, but I think if you modeled us as a one party state, I don't think you'd find yourself having to explain too many actions taken in physical reality that contradict that assessment, although you clearly did label some that were anomalous to that assessment. I think we will see fewer and fewer anomalies as power is consolidated.

The only thing that's made me hopeful in terms of checks on the power that is consolidating is Newsom's threat to unilaterally exempt California from the tariffs. That type of action shows a state potentially wielding real dissenting power and does give me some hope.