Latest Breaking News

Josiesdad

(62 posts)

47. Excelent idea!

Sat Jul 5, 2025, 03:43 PM

Jul 5

The states should, by all means, use every tool in their arsanal to force this rogue federal government to abide by its own laws.

When a administration decides to selectively withold payment for programs that congress had previously approved and signed into law it amounts to a selective (i.e. line-item) veto of completed legislation. That is, per se, unconstitutional.

Further, there are a couple of SCOTUS cases which hold that federal officials that violate their constitutional oaths can be held to be personal responsible for damages (see: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics & Butz v. Economou) So, following this logic, it is concievable that the states or other political subdivisions could get judgements against the personal property of any federal officials that were involved in deciding or implementing these missbegotten decisions.

And... since this action is civil in nature, it means that the recent presidential immunity cases decided by SCOTUS do not apply.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

'Liens on their property': Dem reveals blue states' secret weapon against Trump [View all] BumRushDaShow Jul 5 OP

I have been saying that the states who he moves against should do something like this. OldBaldy1701E Jul 5 #1

I don't know if it's legal but it's worth a try. COL Mustard Jul 5 #21

It definitely doesn't sound legal, but it can at least delay and maybe deny state funds to an asset ancianita Jul 5 #35

They can drag their feet like tfg, tie it up in courts and not comply with the rulings.. What are they gonna do, sue? mitch96 Jul 5 #46

They'll grab him off the street and send him to Justice matters. Jul 5 #51

Exactly. (n/t) OldBaldy1701E Jul 6 #61

I don't see how that would work FBaggins Jul 5 #2

They would just move their assets. Hornedfrog2000 Jul 5 #3

OUR ASSETS! BidenRocks Jul 5 #38

Can the garnish income from the properties? Scrivener7 Jul 5 #6

can't they prevent the government from accessing their properties? LymphocyteLover Jul 5 #7

No. In fact the Biden administration proved this FBaggins Jul 5 #12

The "Liens on their property" is more of an analogy/euphemistic term BumRushDaShow Jul 5 #9

The example given is awful FBaggins Jul 5 #13

"Withholding payroll taxes for state employees screws the employees" BumRushDaShow Jul 5 #17

Not a crime at all. There's no federal statute mandating the process whereby withholding makes its way to the Feds. paleotn Jul 5 #27

Let me clarify - the employees are not screwed Klaus Hergersheimer Jul 5 #31

Welcome to DU LetMyPeopleVote Jul 6 #62

Exactly, good info Farmer-Rick Jul 5 #18

I wrote the following downthread BumRushDaShow Jul 5 #24

Thanks for the info. Farmer-Rick Jul 5 #26

In theory they could foreclose Nasruddin Jul 5 #30

Isnt selling off public lands one of the many problems in the dump bill? quakerboy Jul 5 #55

That part was dropped a few days ago FBaggins Jul 5 #57

Nice idea but Supreme Court will eventually intervene against states. Is K-9 funding mandated by congress? lostnfound Jul 5 #4

The education funding was mandated by Congress, yes LymphocyteLover Jul 5 #8

How would retaliation from pedo Trump actually work? Farmer-Rick Jul 5 #23

How would the states get the employer to give them the money instead of it being sent directly to the US Treasury? MichMan Jul 5 #49

Aside from regular state taxes you mean? Farmer-Rick Jul 5 #50

I didn't see any specifics in the OP about what type of state payments would be held. MichMan Jul 5 #54

Google is helpful BumRushDaShow Jul 5 #58

The "employer" in this case is *THE STATE* BumRushDaShow Jul 5 #53

See paleotn response to that upthread. Dixiegrrrl Jul 5 #29

Turn off utilities. Historic NY Jul 5 #5

This has been tried before, didn't work. DUU Jul 5 #10

Welcome to DU orangecrush Jul 5 #15

Got a link on that? NJCher Jul 5 #19

There is nothing in that article, nor an earlier NBC one, that says anything about "federal property". BumRushDaShow Jul 5 #20

That doesn't sound like the same thing Farmer-Rick Jul 5 #25

Schlump definitely has some form of dementia. ShazzieB Jul 6 #60

Good strategy. You play the game presented to you, and stand tall. /.nt bucolic_frolic Jul 5 #11

YES orangecrush Jul 5 #14

If it's a "secret weapon" why announce it? NoMoreRepugs Jul 5 #16

I think the term "secret" is more "slang" than literal. BumRushDaShow Jul 5 #22

I need a "rhetorical question" emoji. NoMoreRepugs Jul 5 #40

DUer tanyev uses this BumRushDaShow Jul 5 #42

Writers NJCher Jul 5 #37

I say "YES" let's do it!! h2ebits Jul 5 #28

Trump's properties maliaSmith Jul 5 #32

Fight the POWER!!! sunflowerseed Jul 5 #33

Isn't this legally just a series of setoffs? rzemanfl Jul 5 #34

I'm for it hope California does it. republianmushroom Jul 5 #36

The Fed may have the bldg or whatever, BidenRocks Jul 5 #39

I don't think this has to do with what they call "real property" (buildings) BumRushDaShow Jul 5 #41

Please see my post #34 above regarding setoff. rzemanfl Jul 5 #43

I saw it BumRushDaShow Jul 5 #48

Newsom is considering doing something similar... AntiFascist Jul 5 #44

I am glad they are exploring ways to shift money to their own state from the fed mdbl Jul 5 #45

Excelent idea! Josiesdad Jul 5 #47

This is part of what I see as a soft secession Metaphorical Jul 5 #52

This is soveirgn citizen tactics. Jacson6 Jul 5 #56

Problem is BumRushDaShow Jul 5 #59

Right you are BRDS - the executive branch is provoking Blue States into "getting even" as the only option left FakeNoose Jul 6 #63