politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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