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.
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.
Can you cite any specific instance of a representative in your legislature threatening such action or expressing a desire to be able to do something like that?
This is one of the rare ways in which the two-party system is actually beneficial. They disagree so much, that when they actually do agree, it's serious business.
Taking down the NSA is a move that has bipartisan support. Shutting down LGBT advocacy groups in the same way would cause massive backlash from the left.
http://www.choosemaryland.org/factsstats/Documents/Major%20E...
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.
Pass that peace pipe senator, will ya?
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.