'Liens on their property': Dem reveals blue states' secret weapon against Trump

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Raw Story

July 4, 2025 8:51PM ET


President Donald Trump's administration withholding federal money Congress appropriated to blue states can present a unique opportunity for Democratic-controlled state governments, according to two Democratic state legislators from blue states.

In a Friday segment on MSNBC's "Deadline: White House," Maryland House of Delegates Majority Leader David Moon (D) told host Alicia Menendez that two bills he's introduced would enable his state to begin withholding state funds meant for the federal government. Moon defended the bills as necessary due to the Trump administration's recent announcement withholding $7 billion from K-12 schools across the country

According to the Baltimore Sun, Maryland was counting on $125 million for after-school programs, teacher training programs and summer programs prior to the Department of Education suddenly announcing a day before the money was to be disbursed that it was simply "unavailable." Moon said the state was now in "unprecedented times" and had to consider strict measures.

"I introduced bills to treat the federal government as deadbeat debtors, and basically have Maryland act like a collections agency," Moon said. "So we're talking about withholding funds that's owed to the feds and putting liens on their property."

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/act-like-a-collections-agency-democrat-reveals-blue-states-secret-weapon-aga/

[OldBaldy1701E]

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

I don't know if this will work, but at least they are trying it.

[COL Mustard]

21. I don't know if it's legal but it's worth a try.

I'm sure the Feds would claim it's not legal based on the concept of Sovereign Immunity. Let them take it to court and we'll see.

[ancianita]

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

stripping fascist oligarchy. Make them fight every state for what they're trying to legally steal.

[mitch96]

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

Roll out the military to get the money? FBI??
m

[Justice matters.]

51. They'll grab him off the street and send him to

the concentration camp in Florida.

[OldBaldy1701E]

61. Exactly. (n/t)

[FBaggins]

2. I don't see how that would work

Liens wouldn’t have any effect. They keep people from selling their property without clearing the lien… but why would the federal government care? I’m also not sure it’s possible - because the property has to be related to the debt in some fashion.

The article also doesn’t discuss what funds the state has the power to withhold. Generally… it spends far more time on why the state would want to do it rather than what it could actually do.

[Hornedfrog2000]

3. They would just move their assets.

Tadah

[BidenRocks]

38. OUR ASSETS!

[Scrivener7]

6. Can the garnish income from the properties?

[LymphocyteLover]

7. can't they prevent the government from accessing their properties?

At least at a more advanced level of lawsuit?

Any federal properties, like buildings, seem relevant to this.

I would think they have good lawyers working on this, though it's obviously an untested legal theory.

[FBaggins]

12. No. In fact the Biden administration proved this

Texas lost in court when they tried to block access to the border from federal authorities

[BumRushDaShow]

9. The "Liens on their property" is more of an analogy/euphemistic term

There was a news OP about this last weekend when the idea was floated - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143487883

Since that article, actual legislation has been introduced.

From that linked NBC article - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trumps-funding-freezes-states-new-gambit-withholding-federal-money-rcna215212

(snip)

In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government.

(snip)

At the state government level, that is basically all they have control over, where the private sector directly forwards their employee federal tax withholdings themselves.

However when you have large "blue" trifecta states like California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey, which also may have a large "blue" County and Municipal workforce (who are not considered "state employees" but "county" or "municipal" employees), similar could be deployed.

[FBaggins]

13. The example given is awful

Withholding payroll taxes for state employees screws the employees - not the federal government and would almost certainly be a crime.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. "Withholding payroll taxes for state employees screws the employees"

Only when they file their taxes (including for a refund). And alternately, they could cease withholding altogether and it would be up to the employee to either set it aside themselves to pay or send directly.

And when since is anything a "crime" anymore when this current administration has continued to VIOLATE multiple laws, including the Antideficiency Act, the various Civil Service Acts, the Impound Act, and are in essence doing "ex post facto" punishments-through-E.O.s.

What is your response about this current administration's VIOLATION OF NUMEROUS LAWS?

( *crickets* )

They are still working out the details of how to go about something like this but if you'll notice, the GOP - and most notably, the state of TX, comes up with similar "policy schemes" to benefit THEIR STATES continually, and in some cases, have actually prevailed with them.

We need to start going on the "STATES RIGHTS" offensive since we obviously no longer have the federal government (nor the SCOTUS) to back us up this time.

[paleotn]

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

That's the realm of executive branch rules and procedures. Not statutory law. The law itself only states that the funds must be paid to the Feds. The process of doing so is murky, like much of federal law.

If an employer collects your income tax withholding, but fails to send it to the Feds, the IRS doesn't come after you, the employee. They go after your employer or some third party payroll processor. Whoever is responsible for the non-payment. In such cases, employees are credit by the IRS with what was withheld and held blameless.

If the Feds want to fight with CA, Mass or CT over the non-payment, well, that is kind of the point, no?

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

31. Let me clarify - the employees are not screwed

As a 31 year now retired IRS agent I'd like to inform you that when an employer withholds federal taxes from the paychecks of employees the employer is responsible for depositing those funds with the IRS. All Forms W-2 provided to the employees for filing their personal tax returns are accepted by the IRS without question and the federal withholding is credited to the employees even if the employer did not deposit the withheld funds with the IRS. We agents attempted to collect the withheld taxes from the employers. The employees are not liable at all.

Collecting withheld taxes from employers was a top priority when I worked for the IRS. We also performed a full compliance check to make sure that the employers reported the Social Security and Medicare wages and taxes withheld from each employee to ensure that employees would receive SS and MED benefits when they reached retirement age. That was one of the little known services the IRS used to provide when it was sufficiently staffed. Those MAGAs in Trump's congress who have made draconian cuts to the IRS budget are screwing 'ordinary' Americans by weakening IRS oversight of the compliance of employers. Obviously, their claim to be the party of working people is a farce.

In the worst case scenario when a delinquent employer fails to deposit withheld taxes with the IRS:
---In most cases when small business employers run by sole proprietors abscond with the funds they spend the $$$ for personal expenses and possibly luxuries.
---By the time an IRS agent makes contact the business may have folded, the business owner is no where to be found, and there are no assets available for the IRS to appropriate to collect the withheld taxes. In most cases most if not all of the withheld taxes are never collected.
---Assuming that the delinquent employer provides Forms W-2 to the employees (or the employees have to file an estimate) they are given full credit for the income tax withheld from their wages. In many cases they receive refunds on their Form 1040 tax returns based on withheld taxes that were never paid to the government. The amounts refunded are $$$ that drain the Treasury of funds needed for the federal budget. As far as I recall there were no reports that specifically tracked those 'lost' funds but per the GAO the estimated Tax Gap (taxes not paid) regarding employment taxes is approximately $94 Billion per year.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

62. Welcome to DU

[Farmer-Rick]

18. Exactly, good info

They are basically holding onto money that the federal government is taking from their employees and grant repayments.

Thank you for saying it. It's clearly an analogy.

But the misunderstanding that a lien has to be related to the debt is not true. For example my neighbor's house had lien from a credit card company. When it sold, Visa got their $50,000. Any lender can request a judgement by the court against a borrowers property. They just have to convince a judge.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. I wrote the following downthread

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3491192

There is nothing in that article, nor an earlier NBC one, that says anything about "federal property".

I believe the headline is using a lawmaker's "analogy" for what they are looking at doing with respect to holding the federal government "accountable" to "pay what is owed by law".

I.e., the state would do this by "maintaining possession of what would technically "belong to the federal government" (tax payments and any unspent grant money that would normally be returned to the government) until the matter is resolved.

I suppose one could almost call it a "repossession".

Or another analogy - when Congress authorized funding through legislation ( "law" ) and refuses to honor that (which is what the "Impound Act" was supposed to address but is being ignored by 45), then a "contract has been broken". I.e., many of those appropriations laws literally specify actual dollar amounts to be given to a specific entity (city, state, organization, etc.).

IOW, they are LINE ITEMS, and refusal to honor that is refusal to honor the stipulations of the "contract" between the federal government and the entity that was promised money.

[Farmer-Rick]

26. Thanks for the info.

Well said.

[Nasruddin]

30. In theory they could foreclose

force a sale, like any other lien holder.

But see "sovereign immunity" above. Trump's law firm, the Supreme Court, would take care of it if it became a real problem.

[quakerboy]

55. Isnt selling off public lands one of the many problems in the dump bill?

[FBaggins]

57. That part was dropped a few days ago

Regardless, it's highly unlikely that a state could place a lien on federal property.

[lostnfound]

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

If it’s clearly mandated and Drumph is refusing to disburse, then they might have a leg to stand on.
As far as how this would work, most funds that the state collects which are transferred to the federal government are tied to individuals, such as payroll taxes of state employees; and unemployment or child support transfers. Problem with that is that vindictive monster might just take it out on the individuals.

[LymphocyteLover]

8. The education funding was mandated by Congress, yes

[Farmer-Rick]

23. How would retaliation from pedo Trump actually work?

So the State collects federal taxes from the employees and sits on it. The state will give the employee a W-2, showing he paid. When the employee files he uses his W-2 as proof he paid his taxes on his labor.

I once had boss who was skimming off my FICA tax. He was investigated by the IRS. I was not investigated. Also, in many deals the Feds or State make with corporations, the corporation is allowed and encouraged to retain their employees federal or state labor taxes. It's done regularly.

Instead of the corporation sending on the labor tax to the Feds or State, it just retains them instead of getting lump sum subsidies from the government. It reduces paperwork and unnecessary back and forth movement of funds due a corporate entity.

[MichMan]

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

[Farmer-Rick]

50. Aside from regular state taxes you mean?

There are states that have state income taxes.

From the initial post it's just state employees' labor taxes that would be withheld from Trump.

[MichMan]

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

There have been multiple posts in other threads suggesting that the states intercept the tax withholding from all employers within a state. Regular State income taxes collected don't go to the Federal government anyway.

[BumRushDaShow]

58. Google is helpful

As an example, MD has apparently been working on theirs since March -

Deadbeat feds: State lawmakers draw up bills to respond if White House withholds payments

By: Jack Bowman - March 6, 2025 1:32 am

(snip)

“Essentially, we’re preparing for the possibility of the federal government acting as a deadbeat debtor and needing to find ways to collect congressionally approved funding,” Moon said Wednesday.

Moon said that the first of his two bills, HB1545, would authorize Comptroller Brooke Lierman, in consultation with the BPW, to withhold funds owed to the federal government in an amount equivalent to funds being withheld from Maryland. The bill defines the federal government as being delinquent in the case of “noncompliance with court decisions” related to federal spending. A spokesperson for the comptroller said the office was still reviewing the bills and was not able to immediately comment.

The second bill, HB1546, would direct Attorney General Anthony Brown to work with the Central Collections Unit to put liens on federal property in Maryland until the state is able to “resolve the payment obligations from the federal government.”

The bill states that Maryland would reserve jurisdiction with respect to any land that the federal government leases or holds in the state if they are found delinquent in their payments.

(snip)

So for example, here is their draft textf for HB1545 (PDF) - https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/bills/hb/hb1545f.pdf

HOUSE BILL 1545
P1, P3 EMERGENCY BILL 5lr3639
By: Delegates Moon, J. Lewis, Atterbeary, Barnes, Clippinger, Korman,
Pena–Melnyk, and Wilson
Introduced and read first time: February 25, 2025
Assigned to: Rules and Executive Nominations

A BILL ENTITLED

AN ACT concerning1

Board of Public Works – Comptroller – Delinquent Federal Funds2

FOR the purpose of authorizing the Comptroller, in consultation with the Board of Public3

Works, to withhold up to a certain amount of State payments to the federal4
government under certain conditions; authorizing the Board of Public Works to5
determine the federal government to be delinquent in federal funds owed to the State6
under certain circumstances; and generally relating to delinquent federal funds.7

BY adding to8

Article – State Finance and Procurement9
Section 2–109 and 10–20810
Annotated Code of Maryland11
(2021 Replacement Volume and 2024 Supplement)12

BY repealing and reenacting, without amendments,13

Article – State Finance and Procurement14
Section 10–10115
Annotated Code of Maryland16
(2021 Replacement Volume and 2024 Supplement)17

BY adding to18

Article – State Government19
Section 4–11520
Annotated Code of Maryland21
(2021 Replacement Volume and 2024 Supplement)22

SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND,23

That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:24

Article – State Finance and Procurement25

2–109.1

WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS FOUND NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH2
COURT DECISIONS UPHOLDING FEDERAL CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED SPENDING3
AS PROVIDED IN § 10–208 OF THIS ARTICLE AND § 4–115 OF THE STATE4
GOVERNMENT ARTICLE, THE COMPTROLLER MAY WITHHOLD STATE PAYMENTS TO5
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN AN AMOUNT UP TO THE TOTAL OF DELINQUENT6
FEDERAL FUNDS.7

10–101.8

In this title, “Board” means the Board of Public Works.9

10–208.10

THE BOARD MAY DETERMINE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE11
DELINQUENT IN FEDERAL FUNDS OWED TO THE STATE IN THE EVENT OF FEDERAL12
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT DECISIONS UPHOLDING CONGRESSIONALLY13
APPROVED SPENDING.14

Article – State Government15

4–115.16

FOR DELINQUENT FEDERAL FUNDS AS DETERMINED UNDER § 10–208 OF THE17
STATE FINANCE AND PROCUREMENT ARTICLE, THE COMPTROLLER, IN18
CONSULTATION WITH THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, MAY WITHHOLD DELINQUENT19
FEDERAL FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH § 2–109 OF THE STATE FINANCE AND20
PROCUREMENT ARTICLE.21

SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That, if any provision of this Act or22
the application of any provision of this Act to any person or circumstance is held invalid for23
any reason in a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity does not affect other24
provisions or any other application of this Act that can be given effect without the invalid25
provision or application, and for this purpose the provisions of this Act are declared26
severable.27

SECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act is an emergency28
measure, is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health or safety, has29
been passed by a yea and nay vote supported by three–fifths of all the members elected to30
each of the two Houses of the General Assembly, and shall take effect from the date it is31
enacted.

The above has citations that specifically reference financial sections of the MD state code (if you want to take the time to look up the MD state laws and regulations).

[BumRushDaShow]

53. The "employer" in this case is *THE STATE*

I.e., all those state employees who work at the DMVs, the prisons, the state Health Department, the Emergency Management agencies, the Environmental agencies, and as LEO... and in most (if not all) states, the public school teachers and other staff that work in a public school system (as well as employees in any state-associated higher education institutions).

They are not talking about private sector employers.

[Dixiegrrrl]

29. See paleotn response to that upthread.

Why employees are not responsible for state deciding how to handle the money.

[Historic NY]

5. Turn off utilities.

[DUU]

10. This has been tried before, didn't work.

I believe this was tried during the Reagan years, to stop a federal construction project in Texas.
Ultimately, the Feds don’t need a local building permit, approval from any state or local authority to build, buy, sell, construct, destruct, operate or use any property in any state, city, territory (or country).

They may acquiesce to local building codes if they so choose but would laugh such an attempt off to impede through a lein. (then put the party on the TCMP list for a few years).

[orangecrush]

15. Welcome to DU

Thanks for expressing your concern.

[NJCher]

19. Got a link on that?

Eom

[BumRushDaShow]

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

I believe the headline is using a lawmaker's "analogy" for what they are looking at doing with respect to holding the federal government "accountable" to "pay what is owed by law".

I.e., the state would do this by "maintaining possession of what would technically "belong to the federal government" (tax payments and any unspent grant money that would normally be returned to the government) until the matter is resolved.

[Farmer-Rick]

25. That doesn't sound like the same thing

It doesn't involve movement of funds.

Ultimately the Federal government could just drop bombs on any city or state capital it feels is misbehaving.

They dropped bombs on union strikers in West Virginia.... To make them go back to work for slave wages....right to work state no doubt. Margarat Thatcher had several military strike operations planned against striking miners and dock workers (I know it's not the US).

This just shows how dementia riddled conservatives think about workers. We are more like indentured servants to them. (Thatcher died of/with Alzheimer's, which I'm sure pedo Trump has too.)

[ShazzieB]

60. Schlump definitely has some form of dementia.

I've heard enough very knowledgeable experts make the case to be 100% convinced, especially given the deterioration that I can see and hear with my own eyes and ears.

?si=evZTrXIY4UVkKQym

[bucolic_frolic]

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

[orangecrush]

14. YES

[NoMoreRepugs]

16. If it's a "secret weapon" why announce it?

[BumRushDaShow]

22. I think the term "secret" is more "slang" than literal.

I.e., they could have used more boring terms like "exploit a possible legal loophole" or "attempt the use of an obscure legal strategy".

[NoMoreRepugs]

40. I need a "rhetorical question" emoji.

[BumRushDaShow]

42. DUer tanyev uses this

(thankfully I just found it again and saved it in my little image text file )

[NJCher]

37. Writers

are always using words that will pull in the reader.

This was not a good choice.

[h2ebits]

28. I say "YES" let's do it!!

It is already well documented that the blue states contribute more in taxes than the red states and actually supplement the red states.

We the People need to get control of our money and stop the madness!

[maliaSmith]

32. Trump's properties

Blue states should start imminent domain actions against all of Trump owned properties. Take them over and use them to house the homeless. Hawaii, Calif, NY, NJ, Va etc have Trump owned properties. Take them over, so Trump can't make money off them.

[sunflowerseed]

33. Fight the POWER!!!

[rzemanfl]

34. Isn't this legally just a series of setoffs?

setoff
A setoff is the right of someone who owes money to subtract from the debt any money owed in the other direction.

It seems to me that no legislation is required. The state just doesn't send the check to the Feds and applies it to what the Federal Government owes it. This seems to me to be an executive branch function of state goverment.

[republianmushroom]

36. I'm for it hope California does it.

[BidenRocks]

39. The Fed may have the bldg or whatever,

The States control the roads.
Will they helicopter in everything?

Will the Marines be sent to illegally open state access?

[BumRushDaShow]

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

but is just a euphemism to compare the strategy to what happens with "liens", except substituting "building" with "funding".

[rzemanfl]

43. Please see my post #34 above regarding setoff.

[BumRushDaShow]

48. I saw it

I have been plowing through all the replies for my OPs and it has been quite a chore!

I had also posted stuff upthread - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3491126

including a link to a NBC News article from last week - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trumps-funding-freezes-states-new-gambit-withholding-federal-money-rcna215212

We have to see what they will eventually come up with.

[AntiFascist]

44. Newsom is considering doing something similar...

but the details are not clear:

...
CalMatters asked several tax experts to weigh in on how the state could withhold money from the federal government. Most would not comment about what they called a “vague” threat by state officials. But they pointed out that residents and businesses pay state and federal governments directly when they file their income taxes — making it unclear what tax money California could withhold.

Newsom is not suggesting people stop paying their taxes, said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for the governor. But she said the state is considering “whether there are potential options that would allow it to retain some of the funding it typically sends the federal government.”
...
https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/06/could-california-really-withhold-tax-money-from-the-u-s-if-trump-cuts-federal-funds/

[mdbl]

45. I am glad they are exploring ways to shift money to their own state from the fed

Since the fed has become so completely irresponsible to the public.

[Josiesdad]

47. Excelent idea!

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.

[Metaphorical]

52. This is part of what I see as a soft secession

Trump is acting illegally - in effect claiming moneys that were already allocated by a lawful process for non-legal means, and doing so in a punitive manner. A quick breakdown (note, Google generated, so take with a grain of salt) of donor states and how much more they pay minus. how much they receive.

* New York: $89 billion
* California: $78 billion
* New Jersey: $70 billion
* Texas: $67 billion
* Washington: $55 billion
* Massachusetts: $46 billion
* Minnesota: $44 billion
* Ohio: $37 billion
* Illinois: $28 billion
* Missouri: $22 billion
* Florida: $17 billion
* Georgia: $14 billion
* Colorado: $14 billion
* Delaware: $11 billion
* Nebraska: $8 billion
* Utah: $7 billion
* Connecticut: $5 billion
* Tennessee: $4 billion
* Rhode Island: $3 billion

Of these, the net blue state contributions is around $400 billion per annum (red states are about $180 billion) than they receive. For clarity, here's what the rest of country looks like in terms of what they receive net:

Wyoming: +$339M
North Dakota: +$741M
New Hampshire: +$794M
Pennsylvania: +$965M
South Dakota: +$1B
Arkansas: +$1B
Kansas: +$2B
Nevada: +$3B
Wisconsin: +$3B
Vermont: +$4B
Indiana: +$4B
Iowa: +$6B
Idaho: +$6B
Montana: +$6B
North Carolina: +$10B
Alaska: +$11B
Hawaii: +$11B
Maine: +$12B
District of Columbia: +$14B
Oklahoma: +$18B
Oregon: +$18B
West Virginia: +$20B
Michigan: +$21B
Kentucky: +$23B
Louisiana: +$26B
New Mexico: +$29B
Mississippi: +$30B
Maryland: +$35B
South Carolina: +$37B
Arizona: +$40B
Alabama: +$41B
Virginia: +$79B

Virginia and Maryland may be a bit of a surprise, but in these cases, most of the wages being paid are paid by Federal workers, military personnel, etc. (as well as facility and related costs), and as such is considered a deficit in terms of expenditures. It is likely that both states would be firmly in the donor category (as a guess, around 8th and 12th respectively) if viewed primarily through the lens of social program spending.

Trump's modus operandi is to stiff his contractors, then drag it out in court when they sue, figuring that he can outlast them. The problem here is that if states start encouraging businesses to pay taxes to their respective states rather than to the Federal government (which is where I see this going), there really is nothing that Trump can do about it, because the same strategy can be used against him. He could threaten to move military bases, but beyond the overall upheaval coming FROM the military about doing this, the reality is that most of those bases are large, established naval ports, staging facilities for military aircraft, submarine servicing yards, and construction facilities, many with major strategic significance. What is he going to do? Move them to Florida or Texas which have already maxed out all available harbours? Florida has lousy harbors, New Orleans is too siltified, Mobile, AL is not much better. Most Red States are mostly or completely landlocked.

We are moving into a post-Constitutional period. When Trump withholds monies that have been congressionally allocated, he is in contravention of the Constitution. If he declares Martial Law, this is an abrogation of the Constitution if it is not supported by Congress, and I fully expect that he would use whatever trickery he can get away with to keep Congress from not giving it to him. Once that happens, the contract that the states have with the Federal government (which is what the Constitution is) becomes null and void, and either a new contract needs to be drawn up and agreed to by all parties, or we will end up going our separate ways.

Everyone seems to believe that the problem will magically go away - Trump will keel over from a heart attack, someone will fly a weapons-laden drone into Mara Lago, etc., but I think we have to work on the assumption that if Trump doesn't honor the Constitution, then he will also do everything he can to hold onto power illegally, generally by making the illegal legal, but only with respect to him.

Thus the soft secession. In a way, Trump is a symptom rather than the problem. The system itself is falling apart, because there's no real mechanism to adapt the Constitution in a politically efficacious manner and because private actors (big multinationals) have reached a point where they can capture the regulatory mechanisms of the country.

[Jacson6]

56. This is soveirgn citizen tactics.

The federal government is sovereign and above the States. If I built a book case in the White House and wasn't paid I couldn't put a lien on the White House.

[BumRushDaShow]

59. Problem is

the current federal Executive Branch is operating under the fringe theory of being a "Unitary Executive" where there are no "checks and balances" as laid out in the U.S. Constitution. In essence, it has "gone rogue" and the courts are slow to move through knocking it down while the SCOTUS has been tacitly "aiding and abetting" the malfeasance through the use of irrelevant justifications that are allowing the malfeasance to proceed while the lower courts work through the issues.

So when you say -

I couldn't put a lien on the White House.

yet ignore that the Executive Branch is currently IMPOUNDING funds, in violation of the Impoundment Act, and WITHOUT explicit Congressional approval via the submission of a formal rescission request sent TO Congress to approve, then you put all the blame on one side and none on the other.

As another example - the state of TX has been interfering with "interstate commerce" by enacting laws that allow them to "go after" women who were TX residents but seek treatment in another state where that treatment is "legal", but where their law includes all kinds of nonsensical fines and punishments including demands to that other state to extradite the impacted party.

As they say, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

[FakeNoose]

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

It's all provocation that is designed to create Civil War 2-point-0. That's what Chump wants, or maybe he's being told by his billionaire masters. Our federal courts and judges are too smart to let it get that far. I really want to believe that.