Newsome considers breaking federal law

Say it aint so said:

Step back and look at the executive branch ignoring and thinking it is more powerful that the judiciary branch, and repeat your words, "so much for democracy".

Click to expand...

DaisyDay said:

Than you for explaining "bif".

Not allegedly - Trump was found to be liable in a court of law, upheld by all appellate courts. Of course, I don't think Donald John Trump needs to assault women, but he not only bragged about assaulting women, but 26 independent women confirmed his proclivity over several decades. You are defaming E. Jean Carroll.

It wasn't open. This is a demonstrable falsehood. People claiming asylum were given a court date and released. Not citizenship, but asylum. You're making claims about things you know little of.

Willfully? That's contrary to actual reality, but a useful talking point for those who care more for utility than truth.

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

“So much for democracy “ when the unelected judicial branch thinks they are more powerful than the duly elected president. It is rogue judges usurping power the constitution giver the president. Trump has had fight in the courts just to maintain some of the authority given him by the constitution. All of this “king and dictator “ nonsense is just liberal vomit. No king or dictator could be hindered by the courts like Trump has.

Click to expand...

Kathleen30 said:

Wilfully yes . Considering the previous government denied it was even happening for years .

Click to expand...

Kathleen30 said:

You say Sigh you . Consider our conversation over.

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

“So much for democracy “ when the unelected judicial branch thinks they are more powerful than the duly elected president. It is rogue judges usurping power the constitution gives the president. Trump has had fight in the courts just to maintain some of the authority given him by the constitution. All of this “king and dictator “ nonsense is just liberal vomit. No king or dictator could be hindered by the courts like Trump has.

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

“So much for democracy “ when the unelected judicial branch thinks they are more powerful than the duly elected president. It is rogue judges usurping power the constitution gives the president. Trump has had fight in the courts just to maintain some of the authority given him by the constitution. All of this “king and dictator “ nonsense is just liberal vomit. No king or dictator could be hindered by the courts like Trump has.

Click to expand...

Kathleen30 said:

Say it ain’t so you say the appearance of corruption is irrelevant. That’s very true. But the appearance of corruption is often a reality. As you well know those checks and balances don’t always work out

Click to expand...

rambot said:

As a brief summary, is that not how American politics supposed to function?

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

Yes, supposed to function is correct. But some judges overstep their legal authority and have to be reigned in by higher judges. Which in many cases gas has happened. There have been cases with these unconstitutional national injunctions where judges have exceeded their lawful authority.

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

a U.S. state governor does not have the legal authority to withhold federal tax funds from the federal government.

Here’s why:

1. Federal Taxes Are Paid Directly to the IRS: Individuals and businesses pay federal income taxes directly to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), not through the state government. Employers withhold federal taxes from paychecks and remit them directly to the IRS. States are not intermediaries in this process
   
   
2. States Don't Control Federal Tax Collection: Because the federal tax system operates independently of state governments, governors cannot intercept or block these funds. Any suggestion that a state could withhold federal tax payments is legally and practically unfeasible
   
   
3. Political Rhetoric vs. Legal Reality: While some governors, like California’s Gavin Newsom, have floated the idea of withholding funds in response to federal actions (e.g., cutting federal aid), these are typically political statements rather than actionable policies. Experts agree that such actions would lack legal standing and would likely be challenged in court

Click to expand...

rambot said:

That is an opinion.

For folks who argue SO hard for "States rights" on so many issues, I find it laughable how hard you are trying to put all your power into a single entity at a federal level.

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

Yours is an opinion of my intent.

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

a U.S. state governor does not have the legal authority to withhold federal tax funds from the federal government.

Here’s why:

1. Federal Taxes Are Paid Directly to the IRS: Individuals and businesses pay federal income taxes directly to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), not through the state government. Employers withhold federal taxes from paychecks and remit them directly to the IRS. States are not intermediaries in this process
   
   
2. States Don't Control Federal Tax Collection: Because the federal tax system operates independently of state governments, governors cannot intercept or block these funds. Any suggestion that a state could withhold federal tax payments is legally and practically unfeasible
   
   
3. Political Rhetoric vs. Legal Reality: While some governors, like California’s Gavin Newsom, have floated the idea of withholding funds in response to federal actions (e.g., cutting federal aid), these are typically political statements rather than actionable policies. Experts agree that such actions would lack legal standing and would likely be challenged in court

Click to expand...

GoldenBoy89 said:

What’s legal doesn’t really matter anymore. It’s about what you can get away with.

Click to expand...

rambot said:

Yes. Yes. I hear things like that often.

"This isn't about Trump. This is about understanding the Constitution". But if any Democrat were doing this, they would be burning the government down.

So you'll have to excuse me if it's difficult to take support of trump seriously; as if it's a stance based on integrity and not simply convinience.

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

After the previous four years anyone is an improvement. My opinion, fact based of course!

Click to expand...

rambot said:

There are quite a few people whose opinions are the opposite.....55 as I recall...and of those not worshipping him 65% Indies and 92% Demmies

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

Care to provide the source of your numbers?

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

No king or dictator could be hindered by the courts like Trump has.

Click to expand...