This is a silly take. The answer to preventing one branch of the federal government from abusing power is to strengthen the other branches, and to strengthen federalism itself. Both are enshrined in the constitution and are the largest checks on growing executive power? In effect “weakening” any one part of the government.

The UK doesn’t have Texas or California or New York.

The UK has Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Scotland, particularly, is anti-authoritarian.

The only thing that kept Scotland from voting for independence was a promise the UK would stay in the EU. If the Scottish referendum was to happen today, I don’t think England would win their vote.

And leaving the EU has caused massive complications for the Good Friday agreement that specifically agreed to removing border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Yet none of these countries were able to apply enough pressure to change the UK government’s downward spiral.

Looking at the current US, that seems to work not at all. The checks on power is only effective if enforced, and as there is no effort to enforce separation of powers, there are no checks.

And how exactly having Texas or California or New York would solve this?