Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There wasn’t a Covid emergency to justify loan forgiveness.But it's entirely up to the president to determine what is and what is not an emergency. That has been adjudicated and ruled on by the Supreme Court I believe. For instance, Trump declared a border emergency and redirected funding to the border wall. The law is plain as day that loans can be adjusted or forgiven if there is an emergency, and declaration of an emergency is at the sole discretion of the president.
The only reason that a court would rule another way is partisan politics. Period.
Declared March of 2020 and to my knowledge it hasn’t been rescinded. The education act post 9/11 gave the president that power.There wasn’t a Covid emergency to justify loan forgiveness.
You’re probably right though…it’s still BS nonetheless.
Maybe so…still BS.Declared March of 2020 and to my knowledge it hasn’t been rescinded. The education act post 9/11 gave the president that power.
It was the same act used by the president to divert funds to the border wall. At least to
My knowledge it was upheld by the courts.
I agree. 100%. No doubt. Republicans who complain about this use of emergency spending and didn’t complain about trump use of emergency spending for the wall look stupid. In both cases, Congress debated spending the money and didn’t.Maybe so…still BS.
Spending $600B + in that fashion isn’t optimal to put it mildly. Should have went through Congress.
Agree.I agree. 100%. No doubt. Republicans who complain about this use of emergency spending and didn’t complain about trump use of emergency spending for the wall look stupid. In both cases, Congress debated spending the money and didn’t.
Again. I agree. Would congressional limits on presidential use of emergency powers be constitutional?Agree.
Unfortunately this is probably SOP moving forward unless Congress grows balls and fights for their constitutional power of the purse…
The growth of Executive power is a problem IMO.
Administration used the Heroes act to justify student loan forgiveness. Congress needs to be more reluctant to give the executive that much leeway to spend money.Again. I agree. Would congressional limits on presidential use of emergency powers be constitutional?
Hopefully it is successful we can't afford any more of this whack out of control spending.
Follow along. Those tax cuts went through Congress. This didn’t.Okay, now do Trump's tax cut
Follow along. Those tax cuts went through Congress. This didn’t.
How is a tax cut that went through the proper channels considered out of control spending?Not what red was posting
This went through congressionally/constitutionally approved "proper channels", correct? Does Biden have the power or not? If so, it's as "proper" as any other spending...or cutting of revenue...or moving spending around to cover pet projects. If not, it's unconstitutional.How is a tax cut that went through the proper channels considered out of control spending?
So he declared it over in an interview lol. So it’s not technically over haha. Good god guys, let’s use our heads here
I suppose you're right,.. Biden's just the President and not really in charge of anything.
Apologies as for some reason I missed this. I think the 'technical' jurisprudential argument would be that it is not so much "plain language" as "original meaning" (which is not quite the same as "original intent") that should control. So, the argument would go, the emergency powers authorization should be read in light of the statute that included it, which of course was enacted well before Covid was even a twinkle in President Xi's eye. That would of course be consistent with the emerging theme that it is democratically elected legislatures that have to speak clearly and precisely when granting the executive powers. Now again, that's not to say it's the better approach here, since as I've noted, we did a lot of things under the Korean War emergency long after the 38th parallel DMZ was established, suggesting a broad and deferential interpretation consistent with the nature and needs of emergencies. But, we are living in a post WV v EPA world, so maybe there are no more emergency powers invocations untethered to their original statutory authorizations.I’m genuinely curious. Why shouldn’t the plain language hold? It doesn’t seem to demand interpretation. It’s the plain language.
Apologies as for some reason I missed this. I think the 'technical' jurisprudential argument would be that it is not so much "plain language" as "original meaning" (which is not quite the same as "original intent") that should control. So, the argument would go, the emergency powers authorization should be read in light of the statute that included it, which of course was enacted well before Covid was even a twinkle in President Xi's eye. That would of course be consistent with the emerging theme that it is democratically elected legislatures that have to speak clearly and precisely when granting the executive powers. Now again, that's not to say it's the better approach here, since as I've noted, we did a lot of things under the Korean War emergency long after the 38th parallel DMZ was established, suggesting a broad and deferential interpretation consistent with the nature and needs of emergencies. But, we are living in a post WV v EPA world, so maybe there are no more emergency powers invocations untethered to their original statutory authorizations.
Separately, I see that one of the lawsuits in WI was dismissed for lack of standing. A clear challenge to a lot of putative plaintiffs, though it's not at all clear to me whether the WI plaintiffs presented the same case for injury that the Indiana plaintiff did, or that the states did. (Interestingly -- and perhaps in a hold on there a second fella realm -- the Wi court apparently said that there's no need for an injunction because if the law were later struck down the feds could then just collect the money it had previously waived. Now wouldn't that be interesting.)
Once the power is ceded to the executive, you have to have a veto proof majority. Very few Presidents are going to sign a bill that takes away their power.Administration used the Heroes act to justify student loan forgiveness. Congress needs to be more reluctant to give the executive that much leeway to spend money.
Need to amend it and other acts that basically give the executive too much power. No appetite for that though…they’d have to do their jobs
Standing will definitely be an issue in most of the cases.Apologies as for some reason I missed this. I think the 'technical' jurisprudential argument would be that it is not so much "plain language" as "original meaning" (which is not quite the same as "original intent") that should control. So, the argument would go, the emergency powers authorization should be read in light of the statute that included it, which of course was enacted well before Covid was even a twinkle in President Xi's eye. That would of course be consistent with the emerging theme that it is democratically elected legislatures that have to speak clearly and precisely when granting the executive powers. Now again, that's not to say it's the better approach here, since as I've noted, we did a lot of things under the Korean War emergency long after the 38th parallel DMZ was established, suggesting a broad and deferential interpretation consistent with the nature and needs of emergencies. But, we are living in a post WV v EPA world, so maybe there are no more emergency powers invocations untethered to their original statutory authorizations.
Separately, I see that one of the lawsuits in WI was dismissed for lack of standing. A clear challenge to a lot of putative plaintiffs, though it's not at all clear to me whether the WI plaintiffs presented the same case for injury that the Indiana plaintiff did, or that the states did. (Interestingly -- and perhaps in a hold on there a second fella realm -- the Wi court apparently said that there's no need for an injunction because if the law were later struck down the feds could then just collect the money it had previously waived. Now wouldn't that be interesting.)
Here's a link to the text.I really appreciate the explanation, although I don’t get it, but whatever. I don’t understand how clear text can be overridden by a judicial interpretation of congressional intent. Put another way, couldn't Congress have limited those powers in the legislation? The law, as I understand it gives the President the power to modify loans in the event of a national emergency and historically, the president decides what’s an emergency.
Did Congress intend this law only in the circumstances of a terrorist attack? If so, why didn’t they say so?
Ilya Somin at Reason has a nice piece on who might actually have it. Short answer: the guy from Pacific, states, or student loan servicing companies.Standing will definitely be an issue in most of the cases.
Fair enough. But a couple of notes.I really appreciate the explanation, although I don’t get it, but whatever. I don’t understand how clear text can be overridden by a judicial interpretation of congressional intent. Put another way, couldn't Congress have limited those powers in the legislation? The law, as I understand it gives the President the power to modify loans in the event of a national emergency and historically, the president decides what’s an emergency.
Did Congress intend this law only in the circumstances of a terrorist attack? If so, why didn’t they say so?
I missed that on Reason. Thanks for the heads up. It's a truly good read.Ilya Somin at Reason has a nice piece on who might actually have it. Short answer: the guy from Pacific, states, or student loan servicing companies.
True datOnce the power is ceded to the executive, you have to have a veto proof majority. Very few Presidents are going to sign a bill that takes away their power.
You didn’t get the 9/11 payment for grad school?Just filed for 10K$ loan forgiveness. I qualify, but we'll see what happens with lawsuits.
FYI for the bitchers of this program..... I paid off all my undergrad loans while I was in Iraq, and my law school loans have been paid down from 120K to about 24K. So don't give me shit about "well, I paid my own way"
Meh. Seems like she just said this isn’t a front burner issue until it’s made it’s way through the courts. I wish they’d taken this approach to some of the social issues they are grabbing at this term.Looks like many of these Trump appointed Judges didn't get the message about pandering to the MAGAts.
But still don't like how they lied about Roe v Wade.