The novel and untested approach has been introduced by Democratic lawmakers in at least four states.
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against Donald Trump’s efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine.
The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure.
These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections.
Laws not mattering anymore works both ways.
Honestly, states can change their rules… and enshrine and encourage/incentivise communal ownerships… like Co-ops, B-Corps, etc. in which there is not actual US currency involved but state sponsored services provided with credits (like HC, Agriculture) – people could exchanged things and labor for those credits. Those who are disabled would fall under a social safety net and do some things that they are able to do to acquire credits but on a different level and our collective labor should cover our vulnerable and disabled of every age.
California needs to get on this
The states are currency users, and as such are intrinsically subservient to the currency issuer, namely the federal government.
The US federal government doesn’t need whatever money the states, or anyone else, pays it. Every cent a currency issuer receives is instantly obliterated from the economy, and conversely the origin of every cent is conjured out of thin air by their budget.
That said, the states withholding federal payments could work on the chucklefucks currently in charge, because many of them are likely to believe strongly in the fiction of zero-sum economics, but I’d hazard a critical mass hold a world view built on some other fantastical hallucination from hotboxing their collective farts.
This sounds like dissolving the union with extra steps ngl
And?
Blue states can only continue supporting red states that bite the hand that feeds for so long.
And in this case, biting the hand that feeds involves removing human rights.
So yeah. It’s time to balkanize. Blue states will be fine. Red states can suffer and die for supporting a traitor and his treasonous party.
Honestly, we need to dissolve the union at this point. It’s just common sense.
Look, it’s time for a reality check. When a nation’s political culture becomes this dysfunctional, there’s no bringing it back, not without some massive bloody civil war that leaves millions dead. What they don’t teach you in school is that every written law or constitution is ultimately meaningless. The Constitution does not enforce itself and neither does any law. They all require a certain amount of good-faith interpretation. It is always possible to come up with a strained bad-faith interpretation of any law that will allow you to do whatever you want. But in a healthy political system, this doesn’t happen. Both sides practice restraint and realize that their overreach will be answered by overreach on the other side.
But if you lose that? The nation is effectively shattered. The United States, as a functioning democracy, is already dead. It’s zombie corpse is just limping along. The president is openly defying the laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is openly corrupt, openly partisan, and ignoring the plain language of the constitution. It’s all just might makes right now, and both parties view the other as fundamentally wicked and illegitimate.
Once your politics have decayed this much, there is no bringing it back. We need to peacefully dissolve the United States. Will it be easy? No. But we also shouldn’t let one of our core national character flaws - American exceptionalism, blind us to the possibilities that exist. Plenty of nations have peacefully dissolved before. And they find ways to negotiate the hard issues like dividing assets, debts, obligations, military forces, etc. This has been done before, and it can be done again.
When this comes up, the “umm aktually” crowd also comes out of the woodwork. They’ll point out that there’s no actual constitutional mechanism to do this. These people are blind or have been asleep the last six months. You would think they would learn by now that all it takes to do something is that there not be anyone there to stop you.
We should grant all 50 states full independence. Just disband the existing federal government entirely. Let the states then come back together in whatever new nation or nations they want to form. How can this be done legally? Simple. Someone just needs to run for president on the platform of national dissolution, saying, “I’ll grant all 50 states independence. I’ll fire every federal employee, and I will not use any military force to stop all the states from seceding.” And then they get elected and simply do that. Congress or SCOTUS can complain all they want; it won’t matter. That candidate if elected would have an overwhelming political mandate, and there would be no way to stop them. Some may whine that it’s unconstitutional, but who cares? It’s pretty obvious by now that the Constitution is broken, obsolete, and no longer worth respecting. We’re walking away from that broken obsolete piece of trash. We can do better.
So true. What we are experiencing now is the “new normal”, and electing Joe Biden proved that we can’t restore sanity just by voting a democrat in office. Every time we get a conservative from now on, we should expect more of this wacky Trumpian bullshit, even if Trump isn’t at the helm.
There are, as you said, only two way of actually fixing the problem. All-out civil war, which nobody really wants and may not culminate in actually winning, or untethering ourselves from the minority party currently running the failed state by seceding, preferably peacefully. That presents it’s own unique challenges and problems, but it’s by far a better solution than continuing to course correct the sinking ship like we are now. We will only drown with the captain and his crew of morons who intend to go down with the ship.
I’m in.
Because you’re right. Once Pandora’s Box is open, that’s it.
The Constitution has been nullified by not being adhered to. Our branches and Congress have ceded their power to what is effectively a king. Our Supreme Court justices have been proven to have taken bribes and are passing rulings completely in opposition to the Constitution without providing reasoning. The bar for president has been lowered to gutter-level. And a significant portion of our populace has been radicalized by lies from propaganda networks.
It’s over. There is no coming back from this. You can’t legislate your way back to reality because we’ll never have the numbers necessary in Congress to make it happen and the president has been given the powers of a king.
It’s balkanization for the Un-united States or total collapse across the board as we all cling to each other as we drown. I’m voting for balkanization.
I know it’s something that’s going to take people a lot of time to wrap their minds around, but the United States as we’ve always known it is over. This is what happens when you let conservatives have too much power.
Un-united
There’s a word for that - divided.
Also, +1 for dissolving the Union. We had a good run, it’s over.
It need not even be over permanently. Many nations have come together, broken apart, just to come back together again in the future. Look at how many times China has gone through that cycle. Look at German dissolution and reunification. I imagine some time apart would do the nation and its various political factions a lot of good. And probably in a generation or two, a movement would likely develop to try to bring things back together again. The idea of united America isn’t going anywhere. But our present form of government just isn’t what is needed to produce that unity. The Constitution is a collection of compromises meant to satisfy the needs of the 1780s. Perhaps in the 2080s, a new attempt can be made, a new set of compromises forged, and the nation rebuilt. If nothing else, an EU-style customs and open boarder union between the states would likely be implemented even from the time of first dissolution.
Well, the US as we know it is over. I’d certainly never trust having a federal government with as much power as it does currently again, reunited or no.
I don’t want to be in a union ruled by a mad king. BTW, I joined the California National Party, check them out: Vote CNP.
They are running a candidate for the California governor’s election next year. California Democrats are weak AF, and have no idea that the mad king is about to rape them. CNP wants California to peacefully leave the union, but know that it may not be so peaceful.
CNP wants California to peacefully leave the union, but know that it may not be so peaceful.
California needs to create and fund a state militia. We need to convince Oregon and Washington to do the same and then have those militias train and work together.
The Constitution allows for militias. Not that the Constitution matters anymore. So we should do it anyway.
I have been trying to convey that to more senior party members. They take their inspiration from the Scottish National Party, which has worked nonviolently to regain some form of autonomy. I have said though that we may need to consider the Irish way. But even they went the peaceful route in the end, not having gained much.
My thought is America is a warmongering nation. It “won” the west that way, and it will not easily give up the west without murdering millions of people. They will definitely attempt a genocide of Natives, Latinos and Blacks that live in the west coast states.
As an Englishman, the IRA were fairly critical to the political results. They kept the UK government from running roughshod over the Irish political parties.
The IRA proved they were willing to cross critical lines (bombs aimed at large scale civilian damage on English soil etc). They also demonstrated restraint. They often provided warnings ahead of time. They focused on disruption not casualties. The underlying threat was clear however. If you (UK government) escalate too far, it’s simple to switch from a bomb aimed at destroying a high street of shops, to one aimed at killing a high street of Christmas shoppers.
The end result was that Irish politics stayed in the public eye, and the government took the safer path of negotiating in good faith. No-one was particularly happy with the results, but no-one was excessively unhappy with them either. Often the best you can hope for.
In short, the credible threat is required to keep all parties honest. Most smart governments will see an escalating trail of protests as part of that. Unfortunately, the current US leadership doesn’t seem that smart.
No, they are not. I hope though that they are stupid enough to actually welcome letting California go, because it’s full of commies, trans, brown people, etc.
That sounds like the [insert state name] national guard with extra steps ngl.
Ofc without DoD funding.
I’m down to call it whatever. No DoD funding means no adherence to their bullshit.
Honestly, that’s probably the most effective thing that can be done.
In business, where it really hurts, is in the money. Hit them where it really matters.
If a company becomes too large to manage and kits subsidiaries make individual profits, some making profit and others at a loss, you divest. You sell off the crap companies. Makes sense to me. They say Trump wants to run the US like a business, right?
Does it really matter though?
Seems like the lost revenue would just be made up through borrowing / deficit spending. Worried this is another whiff of a move. Its not like I have a better solution; and I wish the states doing this the best of luck in addressing their finding issues, but I don’t expect this to move the needle significantly.
What do you call US when it’s no longer “U”?
The Nintendo DS (Divided States)
The Balkanized States of America
Just get divorced already.
Nawh we’re gonna do a Taiwan-style One America policy
Wait wait wait! Lemme get on to the other side of the line so I can live in a blue state. Just 3 more months!
Sounds like the beginnings of a future civil war if those states actually follow through. It sounds like the right move though, I hope a bunch of blue states follow up on this!
I hope a bunch of fema deprived red states follow up on this!
Virginia: We can play this game too, democrats! We’re keeping our $100B to ourselves this year! Can we still get that $200B you send us each year though?
States rights have and always will be a double edged sword. Usually it’s a non issue because at worst you have representation. Sadly it seems like ours has gone missing now and we all need to stop what we are doing and go find it. Violently if necessary but hopefully as a last resort. Or maybe just 2nd place.
Might be the only way to stop him/gop
This is an economic nightmare
That’s usually what happens when a political nightmare assumes one of the most powerful offices on the planet
Let those welfare queen red states pull themselves up by their own bootstrap
and legal experts said they would face obstacles.
Do they? Those at the top of government aren’t following the rules anymore. Why should states still be bound to do so?
Bc that’s the difference between these groups. One believes in the law and what it means. The other doesnt
So while yes, it would be great to see the Dems play hardball they can’t without failing to uphold what they believe is right
Is it naive? Yeah probably. Will it be enough? Probably not
But going against the fed in a way that is considered “illegal” could be seen as declaring civil war. And while the fed can’t live without it’s taxes it can bomb you to hell if provoked
could be seen as declaring civil war.
To anyone paying attention, we’ve been in a cold civil war since at least 2016, if not before that.
“We ought to be really encouraged by what happened yesterday, and in spite of all of the injustice — which of course friends and audience of this show, of our friend Steve, know — we are going to prevail,” Mr. Roberts said, alluding to Mr. Bannon’s imprisonment.
He went on to say that “the radical left” was “apoplectic” because “our side is winning” and said, “And so I come full circle in this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
This is Kevin D. Roberts of the Heritage Foundation. Point one is that he promotes the idea that the second American Revolution will be “bloodless” only if the left allows it to be, and point two is he describes it as something that is in the process of happening. That means it has already started and has been in motion.
We didn’t fire the first shot of the war here and I’m sick and fucking tired of the people acting like us pushing back is “declaring civil war.” No the fuck it isn’t they declared war on us decades ago now. What a fucking joke. This is classic DARVO, Deny Attack Reverse Victim and Offender. It turns the victims of a cold civil war into the aggressors when the actual aggressors literally passing bills that will fucking cause institutional social murder at a grand scale. It’s abuser tactics, plain and simple, at a national level.
Please don’t play into this false narrative, the civil war is on, us fighting back isn’t declaring it. Please stop letting liars and abusers dictate the rules of reality and what we accept as truth. You’re letting their lies set the bounds for how we operate and it’s that kind of bullshit that got us here in the first place. Stop giving them deference and treating their falsehoods as truths.
EDIT: Trump literally just suggested if Zohran Mamdani becomes mayor of New York City that he will withhold federal funds. We didn’t start this war. Any suggestion otherwise is bullshit.
Point one is that he promotes the idea that the second American Revolution will be “bloodless” only if the left allows it to be
Fuck this asshole. “It won’t hurt if you don’t resist” isn’t a civil war, it’s a hostile coup led by jackboot-supported fascists.
It’s literally also how abusers speak to their abused spouses. “Look what you made me do to you.”
There are a lot of candidates, but he should be one of the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.
I don’t know about you but I’m sick of being on the team that follows the rules and loses to the criminals that completely ignore the rules.
But going against the fed in a way that is considered “illegal” could be seen as declaring civil war. And while the fed can’t live without it’s taxes it can bomb you to hell if provoked
Not making a payment is seen as civil war? If its already at that point we’re already done.
However, realistically not making a payment won’t earn you bombs. It might earn guns though. What would that look like if a state withheld payment? Would a fed law enforcer with a gun go into an office, up to some state employee sitting an a cube responsible for making money transfers as part of their work, and have the gun in their face or threatening arrest if they don’t make the payment to the fed? Would it instead be indictments of state government officials, and perhaps jailing them? Who would they jail? The Governor that signed the bill into law? The state legislature for putting the measure forward?
When high level state officials or low level state office workers start getting arrested, that moves the game to a different level. That escalation may have knock on effects on the citizenry. This would be especially true if the reason the state would be withholding the payment from the fed would be for cutting of services from the fed.
What would that look like if a state withheld payment?
Very simple.
-
The federal government would file a lawsuit asking the courts to freeze the bank accounts that contain the federal funds. The courts would most certainly grant such a motion.
-
While the court case played out, the federal government would continue on with business as usual. The federal government would earmark and spend the frozen funds as if it were already in their possession, simply adding the spending to the deficit/debt until the case is settled and the funds are released. The funds would then be retroactively applied to bring our debt down to where it should have been in the first place.
-
Whether it’s a lower court or the Supreme Court after all the appeals, the courts would eventually rule that states cannot withhold federal payments just because they disagree with federal policies that are affecting them. The only question that would exist would be how long would it take to get to this point, because there’s no way the Supreme Court would or even could rule any other way.
-
Upon receipt of the court order, some bank executive in a corporate office somewhere would access the accounts and release the funds to the federal government. That corporate office and the officer that ultimately releases the funds may or may not even physically be in the affected state, rendering it impossible for state officials to even try to prevent the bank from executing the court order and releasing the funds.
There would be no standoff. There would be no bloodshed. No civil war. It wouldn’t be done through shows of force, it would simply be a few clicks on the keyboard. It would be decided in courthouses and lawyers’ offices, not on the streets.
And notice how I didn’t mention Trump or California, because it would play out the same no matter who was President, or on the Supreme Court, or what state was withholding payment. And it should. Imagine if Alabama threatened to withhold federal payouts because desegregation was being forced upon them and they were against the Civil Rights act. That would never have been allowed to happen. If any state were ultimately allowed to just withhold funding that way, all it would do is lead to red states refusing to pay out whenever there’s a Democrat president, and blue states refusing to pay out when there’s a Republican in charge.
(And yes, there are just as many red states that pay out significantly more in federal funding than they receive. Democrats have California, New York, and MA for example. Republicans have states like Florida, Texas, and Tennessee.)
I feel like you’re missing a point here. It’s significant that this isn’t just
they disagree with federal policies that are affecting them.
It’s that the federal government has made a commitment to provide funds to the state (e.g. the broadband construction funds, funds to build EV charging stations, etc.) and the federal government is now refusing to disburse those funds because the current administration has decided it doesn’t like paying the bills the previous administration incurred, at least to states Trump feels aren’t adequately supportive of his policies. The proposal in this case is to withhold delivery of funds the state is supposed to give the government in order to offset the funds the government is also contractually obligated to deliver.
I agree with you that this specific supreme court would definitely rule in favor of the feds, but I definitely don’t think the case is as absurdly one-sided as you seem to find it. I think a different court could probably find precedent for this kind of dispute if they were so inclined.
It’s that the federal government has made a commitment to provide funds to the state (e.g. the broadband construction funds, funds to build EV charging stations, etc.) and the federal government is now refusing to disburse those funds because the current administration has decided it doesn’t like paying the bills the previous administration incurred, at least to states Trump feels aren’t adequately supportive of his policies. The proposal in this case is to withhold delivery of funds the state is supposed to give the government in order to offset the funds the government is also contractually obligated to deliver.
You’re getting to a level of technicalities and semantics that simply would not matter in the long run. The specific details and reasoning behind it is and would remain completely irrelevant. In the end, it would be a matter of California withholding federal payments because it does not agree with federal policies being enforced upon them. What those policies are and why is completely irrelevant.
I agree with you that this specific supreme court would definitely rule in favor of the feds, but I definitely don’t think the case is as absurdly one-sided as you seem to find it. I think a different court could probably find precedent for this kind of dispute if they were so inclined.
No they wouldn’t, and it would be a disaster if they tried.
Again, what the policies are and why are irrelevant. It would be viewed by every other state as a license to withhold federal funds if you disagree with federal policy. Texas, for example, would be able to decide that they are going to withhold federal payments because they don’t like the restrictions on the 2nd amendment that the federal government is imposing upon them. If Dobbs were to be overturned, for example, Florida could say “the federal government has made a commitment to provide funds to the state to fund pro-life initiatives, and the federal government is now refusing to disburse those funds because the current administration has decided it doesn’t like paying the bills the previous administration incurred. The proposal in this case is to withhold delivery of funds the state is supposed to give the government in order to offset the funds the government is also contractually obligated to deliver.”
See how easy that is. If you can make the argument, so can they.
It would lead to no administration being able to apply nationwide policies without risking losing billions in federal payouts from states that disagree with those policies. It would make it impossible for the federal government to create and implement a budget as they’d have no idea how much they’d be able to collect, especially if a couple of large states were really upset over some recently passed legislation. States like Texas and California would have an outsized influence on federal policy because they could threaten to withhold federal dollars without negatively impacting their own economy, while smaller states like Maryland, Vermont, and Idaho would have no such leverage and in fact be forced to take whatever the federal government gives them and like it or risk losing federal funding and sending the state into bankruptcy.
Yeah, I think we just disagree about this. You’re implying that letting this go forward would be giving in to the state acting capriciously, but that’s really not what this is. The states have literally already started spending the money–hiring contractors and so forth to physically build things–based on the funds that the government had already decided to send them, but is now arbitrarily yanking back. Note that this is different from “we are accustomed to receiving funds for this”; instead it’s “you made a specific commitment to provide X funds for Y purpose, and are now suddenly stiffing us on the bill.” In that light, withholding a portion of the funds that the state ostensibly owes the government in order to make up that unexpected shortfall really isn’t that unreasonable. You keep portraying this as them withholding money “because they disagree with federal policies,” and saying “what those policies are and why is completely irrelevant,” but the policy they disagree with is the sudden and arbitrary withholding of previously-committed funds to the state, and they are withholding state funds to the feds as a direct way of offsetting that deficit. That makes it feel extremely relevant.
I just don’t think it absolutely has to be the slippery slope you’re portraying it as. I’m getting into technicalities because we’re discussing the law and precedent, and technicalities matter a whole freaking lot when you’re dealing with the law. There’s a reason descending into technicalities is referred to in roleplaying games as “rules lawyering”.
And as for highly populous states having a larger influence on federal policy…isn’t that just democracy? Power derives from the consent of the governed, and at the moment that consent is at a particularly low ebb.
In any case, yeah, I think we just disagree on this, and it’s all moot in the face of the specific court in power. I’ll let you get the last word if you want to reply, but I’ll probably drop it at this point.
It’s not saying the states are acting capriciously or even unreasonably, it’s just that the system would treat it as such
The system would declare the proper remediation is the states suing for their funds and having the justice system fix it. If the justice system so orders the dispersement and federal gov refuses to pay out, then I could imagine the settlement terms permitting the state to deduct owed funds from their payments. If the justice system fails to rule appropriately, then the state doesn’t have legal recourse, but it may still make sense to take their recourse anyway.
No, it would be blue states (not just California) setting aside in escrow money owed to the federal government, while pursuing a legal suit for the federal government to follow through on its commitments. This is a legit approach for an individual with a complaint against a business like a landlord, so it seems like you could pursue similar logic
The US government isn’t going to say “Drat, foiled again!” just because you used some clever semantics. Whether it’s in an escrow account or the normal state-controlled bank account is irrelevant. The end result would be the same. The government will order the account seized, the courts will very likely comply, and the government will get the money with the state being able to do fuck all to stop them.
This is a legit approach for an individual with a complaint against a business like a landlord, so it seems like you could pursue similar logic
How cute that you think the two are in any way comparable. State-level issues like this are on a completely different level than a dispute between you and your landlord.
The supreme court has discretion to elevate a case to themselves immediately if they so want to. Just like they have the discretion to refuse to hear a case at all. They just rarely exercise that discretion and mostly take cases that come to them on appeals.
So really the moment it becomes a lawsuit, the SCOTUS could elevate it to themselves (given the severity of the situation and the need for immediate resolution) and make a ruling without waiting for it to come to them on appeals.
I would assume that ruling would go exactly how you expect tho, certainly
We need to just ignore the Supreme Court entirely. They’re a fundamentally illegitimate institution. Their opinions are worth less than soiled toilet paper. Ignore them.
-
The entire basis for the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, was to strike a balance between State and Federal power. It is a contract agreed to, by all parties. And contract law is very clear on what happens when one side breaches their contractual obligations.
These threats by Trump constitute a breach of that contract. If the States withholding tax revenue is considered illegal, then so is withholding Federal funding from the States. The State pays for those benefits, through their tax revenue. The Federal government has no right to withhold those benefits, without also voiding the contract that requires payment.
You don’t have to pay for services you did not receive.
Removed by mod
The law does allow you to withhold payments to someone who owes you. For example, it’s legitimate to withhold rent from your landlord as long as you are setting it aside and have a legitimate habitability case ongoing.
This should follow the same logic
Those at the top of government aren’t following the rules anymore. Why should states still be bound to do so?
Republicans are ignoring the laws applied to themselves, but not the ones applied to other groups, and they’re in control. They will for sure use the law against states that do this. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it though.
Why should states still be bound to do so?
That’s going to depend on who whatever law enforcement agency the feds sic on the state leaders are loyal to.
If we become the people we’re fighting, then victories become losses and our motivations die.
Downvotes? No one reads Animal Farm in secondary school anymore?
What a bunch of liberal nonsense
wE gO hIgH
Fuck off with supplicant nonsense. This form of “resistance” is largely what got us here in the first place.
Secede. Whatever happens in the US after this administration, there is no repairing the damage that has been done without violence. There is no restoring the Constitution, no repairing the rule of law, no restoration of democracy, no restoring affordable living, no curbing the power of billionaire oligarchs, no path to freedom, liberty, or sanity.
Escape is the only option that has a chance at minimizing bloodshed. Individual escape by emigrating, but what countries would want American expats now? so many are following the US’c corrupt lead. Special privileges for the rich, slavery for the serfdom.
Collective escape via secession and the creation of new independent countries is the only sane path forward now. Alternatively annexation could work, but I don’t see Canada or Mexico going out of their way to save Americans, for reasons that should be obvious.
I guess a big difficulty in the way of secession could be that it was denied to Texas in the last 200 years. This attitude carries a certain momentum. That might hinder blue states from seceding as well. What do you think?
What about the current administration gives you the impression historical precedent matters anymore?
fair point that you’re making here.
So you don’t see Canada putting any effort into saving… California or the north east coast?
Let the red states have their trumpistan, I’ll lobby my new Canadian representative to veto aid packages all day long eh.
No. Canada is a small country and can’t actually absorb the millions of people that acquiring US states would entail. California alone has a population similar to that of all of Canada. The US West Coast, if it joined Canada, would suddenly represent the majority of the Canadian population. Canada could absorb a single low population state, like Alaska. But asking Canadians to absorb large chunks of the US is asking them to make existing Canadians a political minority in their own country. Is doesn’t make sense. The US West Coast can simply be its own independent country.
Lmao no and why would they? It’s not canada.
Canada is three mining companies in a trench coat.
It’s both not as liberal and not as nice as it has a reputation for being.
If Cascadia has a chance, it isn’t with Canada.
Please Oregon join in on this.
