william the wie
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2009
- 16,667
- 2,402
- 280
Will the courts dealing with state defaults be able to appoint/demand a DOJ investigation?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The last big default wave was in 1837 and the worst hit then was PA. PA is still a tax haven for MD and NY residents. So far as I know only takings clause lawsuits are a federal jurisdiction in state defaults but with all of the interstate retirements and the no ex post facto clause in the constitution, I suspect that will run into the low trillions.We have a state level default. I don't think there are any rules for it. You could look at southern debt post civil war but that's sketchy.
I don't think a federal court has jurisdiction over a state default. But I guess my question would be why couldn't a state that got itself into a fiscal bind also get themselves out of it? State laws and constitutions can be amended, no? Why couldn't a state's elected reps do what needs to be done without federal assistance?
I suppose the federal gov't could pass a law that allows states to reform their own insolvent pension or health plans or whatever by preempting state laws that prohibit the state from making reforms to laws that they created in the first place. Under this system, the federal government would allow those laws passed by state assemblies to reform pensions to take effect. Assuming the legislature can pass laws to reform pensions in the 1st place.
I don't think a federal court has jurisdiction over a state default. But I guess my question would be why couldn't a state that got itself into a fiscal bind also get themselves out of it? State laws and constitutions can be amended, no? Why couldn't a state's elected reps do what needs to be done without federal assistance?
I suppose the federal gov't could pass a law that allows states to reform their own insolvent pension or health plans or whatever by preempting state laws that prohibit the state from making reforms to laws that they created in the first place. Under this system, the federal government would allow those laws passed by state assemblies to reform pensions to take effect. Assuming the legislature can pass laws to reform pensions in the 1st place.
The blue states will move heaven and earth to avoid a default prior to the elections, lying and cooking the books in new and innovating ways are SOP for them. Probably in many red states too, I should add. But changing future pensions doesn't take care of the unfunded liabilities they already have, and even though Trump's economic growth policies are going to help those states out this year. But those blue states are not changing anything, in fact they seem to be doing the same stuff that got them into fiscal trouble to begin with. No telling when the shit will hit the fan when those states finally run out of road to kick that proverbial can, and their voters let them get away with it.
The blue states will move heaven and earth to avoid a default prior to the elections, lying and cooking the books in new and innovating ways are SOP for them. Probably in many red states too, I should add. But changing future pensions doesn't take care of the unfunded liabilities they already have, and even though Trump's economic growth policies are going to help those states out this year. But those blue states are not changing anything, in fact they seem to be doing the same stuff that got them into fiscal trouble to begin with. No telling when the shit will hit the fan when those states finally run out of road to kick that proverbial can, and their voters let them get away with it.
I pretty much agree with you but the early returns indicate that the running out of road began last year.
Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.
Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.
In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.
Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.
In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.
True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.
Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.
In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.
True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.
Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.
In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.
True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.
Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.
In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.
True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.
Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
Desperate times call for desperate measures, LOL. It is so hard to believe that a majority of voters in places like Illinois and New Jersey don't vote out the Dems en masse, how can they not see the looming fiscal disaster that's coming? My guess is that some of them are expecting a federal bailout, which a democratic president like Warren or Sanders would do, legal or otherwise.
Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.
In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.
True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.
Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
Disagree with the 150 years. It's been barely 100 years since the largest non-nuclear manmade explosion happened in an NJ port due to German sabotage in WWI. Chicago opened the Sanitary and Vessels canal in 1900 and ceased to be a more or less open sewer. It started to go back to the bad old days with the Volstead Act.Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.
True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.
Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
Desperate times call for desperate measures, LOL. It is so hard to believe that a majority of voters in places like Illinois and New Jersey don't vote out the Dems en masse, how can they not see the looming fiscal disaster that's coming? My guess is that some of them are expecting a federal bailout, which a democratic president like Warren or Sanders would do, legal or otherwise.
The disaster in Jersey and Illinois, essentially Chicago, is already here, and been here for over a 150 years.
Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.
In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.
True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.
Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?