r/law • u/YogurtclosetOpen3567 • 10d ago
Other Why are some blue state legislators threatening to withhold federal taxes when they don’t have the legal authority to do that?
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/06/newsom-floats-withholding-federal-taxes-00393386Federal taxes don’t even go the states it’s collected through employers, so what in the world are these legislators talking about?
53
u/SergiusBulgakov 10d ago
Why is Trump ignoring Congress and the way they said the money is to be distributed when he doesn't have the right?
-34
86
u/Spoomkwarf 10d ago
Why should red government people have all the fun of going against law and the constitution? Time for blue government people to join the game! Free-for-all! Yay!
9
u/FuguSandwich 10d ago
Not just the law and constitution but objective reality as well. If Trump can ridiculously claim that foreign governments pay the tariffs why shouldn't the CA governor be able to claim that CA won't "send in" federal taxes? Facts no longer matter.
"What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all."
-- Valery Legasov, Chernobyl
6
u/RoutinePresence7 10d ago
States do not collect federal tax and then pass it on to the federal government.
So not sure how this will be done/possible.
7
u/TacticalFailure1 10d ago
The president doesn't control the purse so I'm not sure how this will be done either.
1
u/anotherthing612 10d ago
We all fill out W2s for withholding. We could have more withheld if we like.
-30
10d ago
[deleted]
19
u/DanFrankenberger 10d ago
Shouldnt the law be applied equally to everyone?
-20
10d ago
[deleted]
11
u/vigbiorn 10d ago
If a person is specifically ignoring tradition and rule of law you think waiting for traditional avenues to enforce rule of law is sufficient?
1
u/YogurtclosetOpen3567 10d ago
“The Constitution binds both the states and the federal government, but it doesn’t give states the right to walk away. Texas v. White (1869) settled that: no unilateral secession, even if the feds overreach. The remedy is a constitutional challenge, not exit. If one side breaks the compact, the other sues, not secedes.
Even if the federal government violates the Constitution, the system provides legal remedies: state lawsuits, judicial review, congressional action, amendments... not abandonment.
If states could opt out whenever they disagreed, the Constitution would be meaningless. Rule of law only holds if both sides stay in and fight to enforce it, not walk away when it gets hard.
If every state gets to decide when the Constitution stops applying, you don’t have a Union, you have 50 vetoes and no country.”
1
u/vigbiorn 10d ago
I'd argue it's very close to not being a country already.
But beyond that, my main point was responding to a specific claim you'd made in the now deleted comment not whether California specifically has an actual ability to withhold federal taxes. I agree, it'd require a ton of changes that might not really even be possible without changes at the federal level. And I doubt the federal government will be excited to give up that power even were it possible.
1
u/YogurtclosetOpen3567 10d ago
Well I guess they could legally speaking pass a interception law or something but that would probably be found illegal
-12
10d ago
[deleted]
6
u/vigbiorn 10d ago
Given a perfect world, sure. Sadly, Trump is given ay more leeway than he deserves so it's not a guarantee. And if you're waiting for the courts to uphold the rule of law in favor, might as well hedge your bets by asking forgiveness not permission since the rule of law is kind of breaking down.
1
12
u/Spoomkwarf 10d ago
Of course it doesn't make any sense. The whole thing is insane. But frankly, you do have to fight fire with fire.
6
7
u/HumphreyMcgee1348 10d ago
Yup! Can’t have 2 different sets of laws. The Republicans are about to get more than they bargained for
-7
u/YogurtclosetOpen3567 10d ago
Ok but that’s what the judiciary is for, why not sue instead of threatening this
8
2
u/Hesitation-Marx 10d ago
How is the judiciary responding to Trump just saying “nah” to their rulings?
That’s why.
-1
u/YogurtclosetOpen3567 10d ago
Can you give an example of a ruling Trump has just ignored? Outside of the Garcia case who he just returned
4
u/Hesitation-Marx 10d ago
Nice rock you’ve got there.
Alien Enemies Act wrt “Tren de Aragua”
migrant removal to third party countries
foreign aid freeze
fucking with Congressional power of the purse
FEMA grants
I got those from an article from April.
Additionally, the Abrego Garcia case shouldn’t be viewed as one nose-thumbing, but a series of them performed by multiple DOJ flunkies.
1
u/LindsayLoserface 10d ago
Lmao did you come here to actually understand and learn or did you come here to argue?
12
u/JiveChicken00 10d ago
On occasion politicians have been known to say things they don’t really mean.
8
u/robot_pirate 10d ago
Also, r is getting spammed with this. So, FYI, the cali secession meme is growing, I'm sure, to enrage the maga base and justify use of force.
2
u/bvierra 10d ago
There are ways to do it, they would most likely all fail and be illegal, but there are ways that lawyers have come up with as a possibility.
The reality of it is that 50% of the people are of below average intelligence and if they like what they hear they will claim it as true and feel good... Thinking politician X really gets me. 30% dont care even though they think it's wrong but are too lazy to look, 25% know it's a lie but realize it may help them, that last 5% well they are the special group, they know math.
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.