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
Rebuttal, he doesn’t actually need to stop paying the taxes, he just needs to nullify them.
I'm mean all of that is equally as drastic and civil war inducing.
Not saying that's a bad thing, but doubt Newsome would
I get it, but realize each of those things is equally as direct as ordering federal law enforcement out of the state. Taxing exports from the state? A flagrant violation of the Constitution. That would be a direct challenge to a main federal power. California decides to start charging an export tax at its borders. They set up tariff stations and start taxing ag exports. That is a violation of federal law, so the feds will have to step in to stop the California customs agents. Now you're right back to having state and federal agents pointing guns at each other. Alternatively, the courts will order California to stop, and California will refuse to comply. At that point, the federal marshals are directed to arrest California officials for contempt of court. Now state and federal law enforcement are pointing guns at each other.
How about tariffs at the ports? It's the feds that collect those tariffs, not state agencies. If you want the state of California to take over those duties, you're going to have to send in state troops and force the federal customs agents at gunpoint.
Seizing federal buildings and military bases? Again, that's just doing a Battle of Fort Sumter.
Seizing mineral rights? The feds license oil companies to drill for oil on federal land. If you want the state to interrupt that, then they'll need to occupy those lands themselves. Or, they would have to provide armed protection to oil companies that decided to not pay the federal license fees.
These are all the same problem. The federal government doesn't need California's cooperation to collect any of its revenues. The only way for California to interrupt the feds is to send angry men with big guns to directly stop federal officials from performing their duties. There is in practice no way to directly usurp federal taxation or power in California without just starting a civil war. The feds do not need Newsom's cooperation. If Newsom wants to stop the feds, he'll have to send in armed men to start shooting federal agents.
I'm not saying this would be a good or bad thing. Frankly, the situation at the federal government is so bad, that we would probably be better off just dissolving the whole country at this point. Independence for all, let states form whatever new nations they want.
But what I'm really trying to do here is provide a reality check. Unless Newsom is actually prepared to order the killing federal officials, any talk of stopping tax flows, seizing federal assets, etc. is just self-indulgent bravado. And I just do not think Newsom is the type of man to go down that road.
Not paying taxes is breaking federal law. He has already threatened that so I don't see why doing a slightly different but more actionable law breaking would be off the table.