California Gov. Gavin Newsom is floating a federal tax boycott. Here's what to know.
www.cbsnews.com
California Gov. Gavin Newsom suggested withholding the state's taxes amid reports the Trump administration may cut funding for the state's universities.

As tensions escalate between California and the Trump administration over immigration, another potential battlefront is emerging over taxes.

The spat began with reports that the Trump administration is considering cutting funding for California’s university system, the largest higher education system in the nation with about 12% of all U.S. enrolled students.

In response, Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote Friday afternoon in a social media post that California provides about $80 billion more in taxes to the federal government than it receives in return.

“Maybe it’s time to cut that off, @realDonaldTrump,” Newsom said.

  • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
    1·
    il y a 2 mois

    Its not though, there is literally constitution legal contention over the issue. There are a few states like MA, NY and a few others where they call it a "may issue"state because it’s not a right in those states.

          • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            il y a 2 mois

            You realize that there are different states and things can be unconstitutional right? People in may issue states have gun privileges, not rights.

            • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
              1·
              il y a 2 mois

              This seems like a confirmation that your argument is, in fact, “Mah rights!”

              Article VI, Clause 2 establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority are the supreme law of the land, taking precedence over any conflicting state laws. This means the Constitution, along with federal laws, applies to all states and their citizens, regardless of their location within the United States.

              • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
                1·
                il y a 2 mois

                I dont get what you don’t understand of on paper vs in practice.

                Just because thats what it says, doesn’t change the fact that may issue states offer priveleges not rights. Just because the SC will likely eventually overturn the unconstitutional state law, doesn’t mean that those people have those rights. They don’t have those rights until it’s overturned, it’s the whole point of bringing it to the SC. Rights denied are rights denied.

                • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  il y a 2 mois

                  The law is only unconstitutional if you have a right that the state law takes away.

                  You have the right as guaranteed by the second amendment and the supremacy clause. I’m not sure what you don’t understand about how the constitution works.

                  • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
                    1·
                    il y a 2 mois

                    The law is only unconstitutional if you have a right that the state law takes away

                    And that is exactly what we are talking about.