5 ms·

Make it illegal to enable any commercial transactions within the state supporting federal agents. No food sales, no fuel sales, no hotel stays, no medical care,

Make it illegal to enable any commercial transactions within the state supporting federal agents. No food sales, no fuel sales, no hotel stays, no medical care, no rental cars. Make them drag their supply chain in like the Middle East. In state economic deplatforming.

_DeadFred_ 10mo ago
Crazy I never thought the Third Amendment would be needed in my lifetime but I think you nailed it with this.
- treetalker 10mo ago
  I knew a guy at DOJ who always said the Third is the most important one
- datsci_est_2015 10mo ago
  IANAL but has the 3rd been tested in this way? The very narrow interpretation is that you can’t be forced to let a soldier sleep on your bed. A more metaphorical interpretation would be that federal agents don’t have the constitutional authority to indefinitely occupy a locale even a state.
maxerickson 10mo ago
Make it illegal to enable any commercial transactions within the state supporting federal agents. No food sales, no fuel sales, no hotel stays, no medical care, no rental cars. Make them drag their supply chain in like the Middle East. In state economic deplatforming. You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash?
- toomuchtodo 10mo ago
  > You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash? If supporting domestic terrorism for economic gains, yes. How you provide the support is irrelevant. State charges cannot be pardoned. Based on the general strike this week, good luck finding a favorable jury for aiding and abetting. "You can just do things." If the federal government files suit, ignore them and keep going while you tie it up in court and run out the clock on this administration. It is easy to forget that supporters of this admin and these actions are in a minority. Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions - https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal...
  - maxerickson 10mo ago
    So know your customer regulations at the gas station then?
    - toomuchtodo 10mo ago
      Sure, whatever it takes. You somehow think it’s incredulous when Pornhub was deplatformed from credit card rails easily, and is still age gated in 23 states through statute. This is far worse, and laws can be made to do whatever the target outcome is. I get it, your mental model differs, and that’s fine. The tools exist and can be used. They could start by blacklisting the BIN of any federal government payment card, and tighten further iteratively based on continuous monitoring and ground truth acquisition. If aggressors have to start carrying large quantities of cash around to operate, sounds like that’s going to be an operational risk. Federal supremacy is based on respect of their authority and providing them material support in state through economic exchange. Revoke both and they are powerless on the ground, and are at the mercy of the locals. https://smartpay.gsa.gov/smarttax/recognizing-your-account/ https://smartpay.gsa.gov/smarttax/recognizing-your-account/
      - eudamoniac 10mo ago
        Even in the absolute best case scenario where this just works, the bare minimum retaliation is withholding of federal funds, and I guarantee you any state or state populace in that scenario will blink first.
        toomuchtodo 10mo ago
        Blue states fund red states, they are the economic engines of the country. California has the forth largest economy in the world. The federal government has more to lose. Red states are poor. Blue states can simply withhold federal support, keep federal tax revenue in state and let the federal government try to sue for it. I encourage the federal government to try to support itself off of red states. https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-most-and-least-to-federal-revenue/ https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-mo...
- xboxnolifes 10mo ago
  No, its prosecution for supporting terrorists.
  - maxerickson 10mo ago
    Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was ICE. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota? That sounds like maybe not entirely the best idea.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - hdgvhicv 10mo ago
      Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was a sanctioned Russian. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota?
      - maxerickson 10mo ago
        Yes, you appear to see the point I am making.
        direwolf20 10mo ago
        It's not a real point. It's only illegal to support a sanctioned person if you know or should have known they were sanctioned.
        maxerickson 10mo ago
        Yeah you aren't getting the point. I'm not saying that the proprietor would be at risk for unfair prosecution, I'm saying the policy would be useless because it is easy to avoid if you don't take it to an absurd extreme. I guess I should have spelled it out in the initial comment.
- solaire_oa 10mo ago
  You're being downvoted, I think unfairly, because this is a completely valid rebuttal. Without going into a diatribe about how governments necessitate coercion and violence, enforcing such a "law" would indeed be counterproductive and hard to enforce, like you're indicating. That said, mutual agreement by businesses and citizenry to make efforts to identify federal agents, then refuse to conduct business seems like it should already be entering discussions (if it isn't). Additional coercion by the local government doesn't need to enter the equation of civil disobedience.

_DeadFred_ 10mo ago

Crazy I never thought the Third Amendment would be needed in my lifetime but I think you nailed it with this.

treetalker 10mo ago
I knew a guy at DOJ who always said the Third is the most important one
datsci_est_2015 10mo ago
IANAL but has the 3rd been tested in this way? The very narrow interpretation is that you can’t be forced to let a soldier sleep on your bed. A more metaphorical interpretation would be that federal agents don’t have the constitutional authority to indefinitely occupy a locale even a state.

maxerickson 10mo ago

toomuchtodo 10mo ago
> You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash? If supporting domestic terrorism for economic gains, yes. How you provide the support is irrelevant. State charges cannot be pardoned. Based on the general strike this week, good luck finding a favorable jury for aiding and abetting. "You can just do things." If the federal government files suit, ignore them and keep going while you tie it up in court and run out the clock on this administration. It is easy to forget that supporters of this admin and these actions are in a minority. Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions - https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal...
- maxerickson 10mo ago
  So know your customer regulations at the gas station then?
  - toomuchtodo 10mo ago
    Sure, whatever it takes. You somehow think it’s incredulous when Pornhub was deplatformed from credit card rails easily, and is still age gated in 23 states through statute. This is far worse, and laws can be made to do whatever the target outcome is. I get it, your mental model differs, and that’s fine. The tools exist and can be used. They could start by blacklisting the BIN of any federal government payment card, and tighten further iteratively based on continuous monitoring and ground truth acquisition. If aggressors have to start carrying large quantities of cash around to operate, sounds like that’s going to be an operational risk. Federal supremacy is based on respect of their authority and providing them material support in state through economic exchange. Revoke both and they are powerless on the ground, and are at the mercy of the locals. https://smartpay.gsa.gov/smarttax/recognizing-your-account/ https://smartpay.gsa.gov/smarttax/recognizing-your-account/
    - eudamoniac 10mo ago
      Even in the absolute best case scenario where this just works, the bare minimum retaliation is withholding of federal funds, and I guarantee you any state or state populace in that scenario will blink first.
      - toomuchtodo 10mo ago
        Blue states fund red states, they are the economic engines of the country. California has the forth largest economy in the world. The federal government has more to lose. Red states are poor. Blue states can simply withhold federal support, keep federal tax revenue in state and let the federal government try to sue for it. I encourage the federal government to try to support itself off of red states. https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-most-and-least-to-federal-revenue/ https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-mo...
xboxnolifes 10mo ago
No, its prosecution for supporting terrorists.
- maxerickson 10mo ago
  Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was ICE. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota? That sounds like maybe not entirely the best idea.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - hdgvhicv 10mo ago
    Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was a sanctioned Russian. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota?
    - maxerickson 10mo ago
      Yes, you appear to see the point I am making.
      - direwolf20 10mo ago
        It's not a real point. It's only illegal to support a sanctioned person if you know or should have known they were sanctioned.
        maxerickson 10mo ago
        Yeah you aren't getting the point. I'm not saying that the proprietor would be at risk for unfair prosecution, I'm saying the policy would be useless because it is easy to avoid if you don't take it to an absurd extreme. I guess I should have spelled it out in the initial comment.
solaire_oa 10mo ago
You're being downvoted, I think unfairly, because this is a completely valid rebuttal. Without going into a diatribe about how governments necessitate coercion and violence, enforcing such a "law" would indeed be counterproductive and hard to enforce, like you're indicating. That said, mutual agreement by businesses and citizenry to make efforts to identify federal agents, then refuse to conduct business seems like it should already be entering discussions (if it isn't). Additional coercion by the local government doesn't need to enter the equation of civil disobedience.