Below is my column in The Hill on the challenges to President Joe Biden’s massive loan forgiveness program. President Biden boasted that the courts declared that they are “on Biden’s side.” It is not clear if Biden’s counsel explained the actual holdings in these cases or whether Biden simply forgot or ignored that explanation. Either way, the President’s boast was wildly off-base.
Here is the column:
In a speech at Delaware State University on Friday, President Biden was positively exuberant as he announced that he had prevailed in asserting unilateral authority to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in tuition loans. He declared that “just yesterday, a state court and the Supreme Court said, ‘No, we’re on Biden’s side.’”
Some of us immediately noted that these were actually federal judges and they did not rule that he has this authority but that the other parties in two cases did not have legal standing to challenge his authority.
Indeed, one of those Biden “supporters” was Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who simply denied an emergency application to the court. If it seems unlikely that Barrett is now “on Biden’s side,” it is because the claim is perfectly delusional.
No one could possibly read these decisions as even remotely supporting Biden’s claim to have virtually absolute authority to give away roughly $500 billion owed to the American people shortly before a critical midterm election.
Within a few hours of Biden’s boast, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit enjoined the lower court. However, even the Eighth Circuit will not decide whether to be “on Biden’s side” but only whether six states have the constitutional right to bring any challenge as a matter of legal standing.
Even the trial judge said the merits of the challenge raised “important and significant” concerns about Biden exceeding his authority.
Overwhelming constitutional concerns are raised by this massive election-year giveaway. Biden simply announced that he would forgive up to $10,000 in student loan debt for borrowers earning less than $125,000 annually; those who received Pell grants could receive up to $20,000 in relief; couples can qualify despite a joint annual income of $250,000. No vote of Congress — just hundreds of billions of dollars written off by Biden, as if he is an American tsar.
The legal claim behind the law is transparently opportunistic. It is based on the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003. As the acronym indicates, this short bill was designed for military personnel who often found themselves in arrears while serving abroad. It allows the Education Secretary to grant student loan relief during a war, military operation or national emergency. But nothing in the barely five-page act supports a sweeping and unprecedented waiver of billions of dollars in loans owed to the government.
Even for the military personnel intended to benefit from this program, the law only allowed waivers or modifications to guarantee that they were not “placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because of their status as affected individuals.”
In other words, neither the act’s language nor these courts are necessarily on “Biden’s side.”
Yet, legal realities rarely seem to be a deterrent for this president. The Biden administration has racked up an impressive litany of losses in court, including many decisions finding that the administration has engaged in racial discrimination or simply exceeded Biden’s constitutional authority.
Biden has been remarkably open in the past about treating unconstitutionality as a mere technicality when trying to spend federal funds. When Biden called for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to impose a nationwide moratorium on the eviction of renters, he admitted that his White House counsel and their chosen legal advisers told him that the move was likely unconstitutional.
Despite the overwhelming opinion of experts to the contrary, Biden suggested he could get as much money out the door as possible before being barred by the courts. But the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the order was unconstitutional.
The tuition forgiveness program is based on the same cynical tactic. Indeed, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel previously rejected his legal interpretation under the HEROES Act. So the Biden Office of Legal Counsel issued a new opinion concluding the opposite based on the COVID-19 pandemic — which was curious, since the Biden administration was just in court arguing that the pandemic was effectively over, in order to allow undocumented individuals to enter the country.
While the president’s legal arguments are weak, his administration is betting that arguments about legal standing will protect it from any substantive review; in the meantime, the administration will rush to forgive billions before any court can stop it.
As someone who has long argued for broader legal-standing rules, this calculation is particularly maddening. This is arguably one of the most costly unconstitutional acts in history, but the administration apparently believes no one will be able to establish legal standing to enable a court to rule in the case.
The president can then go public and declare — falsely — that federal courts “said, ‘No, we’re on Biden’s side’” on forgiving a half-trillion dollars in loans.
The Eighth Circuit could well lift the injunction, and legal standing could shield an arguably unconstitutional program from judicial review — precisely the objection of those of us who are called “standing doves” in seeking broader standing rules. While based on the constitutional requirement in Article III that courts only consider “cases and controversies,” the current standing rules are the creation of the federal courts in narrowly construing what constitutes an injury for the purposes of legal standing. The Constitution’s Framers never intended for unconstitutional acts to be insulated from judicial review, in my opinion. Indeed, I previously represented the U.S. House of Representatives and have long argued for “member standing” to allow, at a minimum, for members of Congress to challenge unconstitutional acts.
There may be other challenges to Biden’s giveaway that can establish standing, or the states may be able to prevail on the issue. However, once again, we need to address the artificially narrow standing rules that prevent review in such cases.
The Framers would have been appalled by a president’s claim to be empowered to write off such a massive amount of money owed to the government. It is precisely the type of unilateral action they sought to avoid through the system of checks and balances, including giving Congress the “power of the purse.”
We now see the literal cost of narrow standing rules. It is not the false claim of these judges being on “Biden’s side” — rather, the question becomes who is on the Constitution’s side if no court can rule on its alleged violation, even with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake?
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Is there anyone of us who truly believe that Joe Biden will be able to withstand the pressures of the forthcoming Impeachment, mental and physical pressures?
Not to worry, the weak Republican uni-party betrayers are his buddies and pals. They’ll go easy on Joe since he’s one of them.
It is the weak Republicans who are unwilling to ‘withstand the pressures’ of the corrupt fake news media attacks on them. It’s Lindsay Graham introducing a bill to ban abortion –right before the midterms– so he could toss his old buddy Joe a big juicy bone (talking point) to chew on right up to election day. ‘Hey did you see the Repubs want to ban abortion for all y’all?’ That’s Lindsay Graham’s gift to Joey. Even Mitch McConnell is working against Republican candidates — because they are MAGA America First! Karl Rove is working against Republican MAGA candidates. That’s the Republican party — a bunch of uniparty hacks.
Which is why Ultra MAGA America First candidates are the proper choice in this election. Stop the uniparty betrayers of the American people. Vote MAGA.
Please re-think:
1. I hope that a MAGA driven GOP don’t drive a political stunt that only will waste ressources and most likely leads to nowwhere. Do they need a VP vacancy? Did you aks yourself: Which policy changes do you expect in the unlikely event Biden will be removed and Harris will take over?
2. Instead, there are so many topics that cry for establishing a select committee, such as
* In 1975, Democrats created Pike/Church committee in House/Senate. Almost a half century later, there is an urgent need for solutions to stopp DOJ’s lawfare.
* Issue::CBP “encountered” 2.4 Million/year people on SW land border. 500K were removed or returned, 50K asylum granted, which action did CPB take and where are 1.8 Mio people located? Reason: Biden administration implemented “21st Century Immigration System” which is part of hidden “Biden-Sanders Manifesto” published in 8/20 [1] It got almost unnoted that on 2/22/22, AZ AG Mark Brnovich issued his legal opinion that border crisis, fueled by violence and lawlessness of cartels and gangs, qualifies as an “invasion” (Consitution Art IV Sec 4 & Art I Sec 8)
* How can we ensure that we do not elect a candidate to office who may be compromised? His son Hunter conected East European Officials with then VP using his WFP-USA chairmanship as cover up.[2]
[1] pp 38-41 & 102-110: https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/UNITY-TASK-FORCE-RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf
[2] https://nypost.com/2021/05/28/joe-biden-regular-at-dc-hotspot-where-he-met-hunters-associates/
The Executive Order, Debt Forgiveness Law, and Aunt Gloria’s Concern
Professor, two weeks shy of midterms, it’s a very busy time, I tell you that. There are so many issues on the table that I lost track. How about you?
I asked this because I watched 65′ “intimate conversation between President Joe Biden and young change-makers focused on finding solutions to some of the most critical issues facing their generation: gun legislation, abortion access, trans rights, economic instability, the climate crisis, and criminal legal reform.” as part of “Now this Presidential forum”. I wonder why this importent dialoge didn’t got your undevided attention (in all fairness, it wasn’t extensively covered).
One of those questions was about student debt. President Biden was so dumbfounding (Secretary Cardona “moving full speed ahead implementing student loan debt relief so we can deliver relief to borrowers who need it most”) that he lectured the audience of six:
“I’ve just signed a law that’s being challenged by my Republican colleagues.” Biden then described the “law” he said he signed, saying if you have a Pell Grant you qualify for “2,000…excuse me…$20,000 in debt forgiveness.” If you don’t have a Pell Grant, Biden said, “You just get 10,000 written off. It’s passed. I got it passed by a vote or two…It’s in effect.”
I mean: If President Biden got “debt forgiveness passed by a vote or two” it’s in effect. What’s your take on that?
Or did the handler of President Biden forgot to tell him that he signed an executive order? I cann’t believe that these people – some of them worked during President Obama’s tenure too – don’t know the difference between something legal passed by Congress and executive orders. Do you?
MNSBC’s Johnathan Capehart recently interviewed President Biden As he wasn’t asked about the many accomplishments his administration achieved within his short tenure – implementation of “Biden-Sanders Manifesto”,fix the economy, shoot down COVIS, etc. – he dozed off. Instead, Capehart asked what he would tell his aunt Gloria, a Biden voter in 2020, who is unsure if he should seek re-election because of his age:
““The best way to make the judgment is to watch me. Am I slowing up? Do I have the same pace? […] I think people should look and say does he still have the same passion for what he’s doing? And if they think I do, and I can do it, then that’s fine. If they don’t, then they should […] encourage me not to go, […] But Jonathan, right now, knock on wood, I don’t want to jinx myself, I’m in good health, all of my – everything physically about me is still functioning well and mentally, too.”
However, as sometimes introspection doesn’t meet extrospection alll the time: Should Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) devote his next letter about Biden’s mentally fitness?
In any case as it was a very hot topic recently: I hope Biden’s handler take good care of nuclear code’s!
It gets worse,
Biden, “My, my legislation says there can be no more than eight bullets in a round, okay?”
Yeah. Really.
Professor Turley: “Indeed, I previously represented the U.S. House of Representatives and have long argued for ‘member standing’ to allow, at a minimum, for members of Congress to challenge unconstitutional acts.”
I share many of the Professor’s concerns, but if we create the kind of legal standing he suggests, the Democrats will enthusiastically prove why we shouldn’t have. They will use it to obstruct everything a GOP President does. Democrats do love their lawyers.
We have a dilemma here. A temporary Congressional majority can allow a President to act like a tyrant if we only allow narrow standing, or if we allow broad standing on constitutional issues, a tyrannous minority can permanently obstruct everybody.
The Greek gods (ahem) often posed dilemmas to their heroes because, by denying any good solution, the dilemma served to highlight the darkest interiors of human nature.
I’m no hero, but my dark interior is for keeping narrow standing. I see the drawbacks, but I think the voters, not activist minorities, should be the ones to strike down a ruling party for tolerating demagogues like Biden, even if that lightning bolt arrives too late.
I greatly appreciate the Professor raising this issue. I’m sure there are many good arguments against mine. That’s how dilemmas roll.
As indicated in my comment below, I come out the other way. It is possible that partisan claims by members of the Senate and House could slow arguably unauthorised acts by the executive in circumstances where they are in fact authorised, but I would rather accept that than face an unchallengeable executive.
Daniel, I read your comment and found it informative. I still disagree because not all Congressional majorities are rubber stamps for a Presidential tyrant, but there are countless Congressmen who would obstruct any majority on any issue, and there are countless judges who would support them. We don’t want a judicial filibuster.
Perhaps the next Congress can pass a law limiting Executive Orders. I would much prefer something like that, if it’s possible.
This Democrat majority is the most disgusting since the Civil War. No exaggeration. But they will pay dearly in January, and they don’t dare bomb Texas to stop it.
“We don’t want a judicial filibuster.
Perhaps the next Congress can pass a law limiting Executive Orders. I would much prefer something like that, if it’s possible.”
Diogenes, though conflicted, I lean to your side of the argument. Intentionally the Constitution promoted a battle for power between the Executive and Congressional branches. Using the courts doesn’t solve the conflict. The legislative branch has to assert its authority. For years the courts have been used to legislate in place of the legislature. Enough is enough.
Ditto, Alan 🙂
Congress can not constitutionally limit executive orders.
Because executive orders are constitutionally limited to the presidents directives to the executive specific to implementing the executive powers within the constitution, and the laws passed by congress.
The fundimental error has been on the part of the courts – refusing to constrain executive orders to the presidents actual constitutional powers.
What congress could do is grant standing to challenge EO’s
.”Congress can not constitutionally limit executive orders.”
John: Sure they can, even if done indirectly. Your claim eventually advocates a Presidency having an overabundance of power and no Congress to limit it. This asks for an increase of power of the judiciary so that they legislate instead of Congress (I expand the discussion to include unlimited standing)
The problem we face is not the Presidency or the Judiciary. It is Congress. Their lack of energy and inability to do what is their intended job. Part of this arises because the government is too big. Experience teaches us that institutions become unmanageable when too big.
NO my claim does not involve a president having an over-abundance of power.
The constitution already limits the power of the executive – admitted we ignore those provisions of the constitution.
But they are still there.
An Executive order can not give a president more power than the constitution granted.
Regardless, my point is that congress can not limit executive orders – but the constitution and therefore the courts can and must.
Congress can using laws define how the president exercises powers that they confer to the executive.
One of the problems you and I are having here is that with the exception of a few areas of uniquely presidential power the power of the president is to execute the laws as written. He can not by EO grant himself powers the congress of constitution did not give him.
The EO on classified documents is a perfect example of an EO regarding constitutional powers of the president.
While DACA is an example of an EO relating to congressional immigration law. DACA was always unconstitutional.
The president does have the unreviewable power to pardon or commute – and Obama could have pardoned all the “dreamers” if he wished.
Instead he tried to accomplish much the same thing through “prosecutorial discretion”.
You already know how I feel about that regardless, there is no world in which prosecutorial discretion extends to ignoring the law completely.
“NO my claim does not involve a president having an over-abundance of power.”
It doesn’t, but I am advocating a Congress that exerts its power, and not having the Judiciary legislate.
This was the discussion:
”Congress can not constitutionally limit executive orders.
John: Sure they can, even if done indirectly. Your claim eventually advocates a Presidency having an overabundance of power and no Congress to limit it. “
Congress controls the purse and doesn’t have to pass the legislation the executive branch desires. It should not be a rubber stamp.
We have problems with legislating from the bench – and should address those.
I am not sure how. Properly it is the role of the supreme court. to reign that in.
I was addressing congress delegating law making power to the executive.
There is no constitutional provision to do so.
Most of the EO’s you object to are in the domain of powers Congress has improperly delegated to the executive.
SCOTUS needs to reject the entire concept of delegated powers. It creates a messy morras that can not be resolved.
As an example – the power of the purse is explicitly with the house of representatives.
Yet Biden’s EO – which he IS resting on a delegation of power by congress, is essentially spending 1/2 Trillion dollars.
“I was addressing congress delegating law making power to the executive.
There is no constitutional provision to do so.”
There is, but it is indirect and part of our checks and balances. Congress controls the purse.
We have a strong contingent of legislators and people that are immoral. Our founders recognized morality as one of the reasons our country could fail.
No Congress can not limit EO’s.
You said Congress has the power of the purse – correct.
Therefore an EO that spends unbudgeted funds is unconstitutional.
No action on the part of congress is needed.
Our difference is that you – because that is what the left does, misunderstand Executive Orders.
First they are directions by the president to the rest of the executive – just as the president as CIC must issue orders to the military before they can act.
EO’s can not constitutionally exceed the powers of the executive.
If congress by law directs the executive to do something – the president can by EO specify how to do that
But it must be inside the bounds of the law.
The president can not take a constitutionally granted power – such as foreign policy – and expand that power by EO.
He can not take a power granted by legislation and expand it by EO.
However within the bounds of either legislation that he is putting to effect, or executive powers he is excercising he can do as he pleases.
“Our difference is that you – because that is what the left does, misunderstand Executive Orders.”
You are mistaken. Not all EOs are constitutional, and that is proven. EOs are helpful within the scope of Presidential powers.
The question lies outside of Presidential powers. Can Congress restrain Presidential EOs? Yes. Congress has the power of the purse, and that extends past an EO to other things that might be unrelated.
There are serious problems with congress. Many of which the judiciary has enabled.
I am sorry congress can not delegate law making authority.
At the very least rules concocted by the exective must be subject to and survive and up-down vote by congress.
“I am sorry congress can not delegate law making authority.”
It effectively has or we would never have heard the term legislating from the bench.
Legislating from the bench is different.
The US operates under Common law, and common law allows the courts to “make law” with regard to procedural due process.
What has happened is that courts have greatly expanded this.
Standing – is legitimate court created law – in need of refinement
Qualified immunity is illegitimate court created law.
.ohn, you are creating new arguments that need not exist. My statement and opinion are clear. The fault lies in our Congress, which is lazy and doesn’t exert its power. Because of that, a President is not adequately restrained. Congress has the power of the purse.
When Congress is lazy and doesn’t legislate appropriately, it opens the door for encroachment by the judiciary, which is what we have seen happen.
The Constitution was written based on people being moral. Too many in power are not, which leads to the dysfunction of our government.
Your response is mostly irrelevant to what I am saying and a matter of opinion.
Executive orders are already limited by the constitution.
Congress has no constitutional power to limit them further.
Like it or not this is fundimentally a judiical issue – the courts must constrain EO’s to what the constitution allows
which is far less than EO’s have taken.
BTW I am not opposed to a Judicial filibuster.
I want the courts to properly declare more acts of government unconstitutional.
Regardless, thwarting govenrment action – which si all that the courts can legitimately do, is in nearly all cases good not bad.
Biden has always been a liar, but now we can add delusion to his list of mental problems. What kind of a country keeps someone like him in the highest seat of power in the world? Only a bankrupt political party and a country fast deteriorating would put up with this atrocity of justice and common sense. And if it’s not this demented being who has his finger on the nuclear button — who the hell does?
GioCon asked, “What kind of a country keeps someone like him in the highest seat of power in the world?”
The answer is; a country that doesn’t want the likes of Vice President Harris to be President. “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”, or another way of putting it for this instance, better the box-o-ricks you can hopefully steer than the woke lunatic waiting in the wings.
I don’t even think prominent Democrats in Washington DC want Vice President Harris as President, so they too are willing to do what they need to do to keep President Biden in office. I think this is a topic of relative bi-partisan common ground for most DC politicians.
“Things Fall Apart {if] the Center Does Not Hold.”
W. B. Yeats
Steve, it is rational to resist a change in leadership when the choice is between two different destructive nuts, Biden and Harris. However, there is a question of how Democrats view such a change and who controls Harris. I don’t think the same people are in charge, so why will Democrats be in such a lockstep hurry in support of Harris?
Animosity exists between the two. Can that be played? Should Harris take command, would she have the same leverage, or would Democrats start to exert control over the executive branch?
Alan, I have a theory about this. Biden blew his campaign stash by the summer of 2020 (through ineptitude). His east-coast donors were tapped out, so he had to go the west-coast oligarchs, and the quid pro quo (if I may stoop to Latin) was he had to take Kamala as his running mate in exchange for the cash infusion.
This was a power play. As much as Biden is the bagman for the east-coast corporate interests, Kamala is the bagman (bag lady?) for the tech oligarchs. If she becomes POTUS, the east-coast white privilege (which has historically ruled the Democrat Party) will get pushed out by toadies for the oligarchs, so Joe and his east-coast minions have been backbiting Kamala ever since the election.
There is also the question of national interest. The Easties have their base in the Atlantic Coast and Mississippi Valley, so they can see the threat China poses, but the Westies made their bucks exploiting cheap Asian labor–mainly in China–and they stupidly believe Beijing will still help California billionaires become trillionaires.
This is a power struggle within the Democrat Party that the media will never admit exists, but the sniping and leaking in the media confirms it. It’s no accident that with Trump out of the way, the media is now willing to discuss Hunter’s mischief.
This is how things get settled by political mafias.
This is an interesting theory, one I never thought about. Now I have to search for tangible evidence and evidence that, but for the cash infusion, Biden would have chosen another candidate. Of course, we see only the puppets and not the puppeteers who exist in the background playing power politics. Those are the ones that dictate whether you are right or wrong, but it’s a unique theory that warrants consideration.
China: You point to the geographic split in the US where the west coast looks more toward China. China also has an east-west conflict with high-tech and rich east coast that is the opposite of the rest of China. It is of interest, even if just a correlation. But, the first thing to come to my mind was that most of the spying and apparent Chinese financial connections we easily see are from the west coast and the Biden Family. I’ll have to mull all this over.
Alan says, “China also has an east-west conflict with high-tech and rich east coast that is the opposite of the rest of China.”
That’s true. In fact, China has a bunch of splits that the CCP suppresses by violence. If a one-party state develops here, that party won’t be suppressing just deplorables. Imagine America’s Hu Jintao, Joe Biden, being escorted out of the party conference by Gavin Nuisance.
Biden must leave. He never should have been elected.
It is irrelevant that this will result in Crackpot president Harris.
If that needs dealt with – that is after.
I do not expect Biden to finish his term regardless.
He has some form of demensia, but it is relatively slow moving.
Regardless, it is not getting better and it will be even harder to hide.
Though he may benefit from a GOP takeover.
He will effectively become a lame duck immediately.
That makes it easier for him to quietly hide in Delaware.
Regardless, he is bad for democrats, and if he does not stroke out,
I expect that democrats will remove him.
My guess is he quietly resigns.
Regardless, he will do whatever his handlers tell him.
I suspect we will see a Pardon of Hunter and the Biden family on the way out the door and a resignation.
The person pulling the strings is not Biden. Average Americans do not know who is pulling the strings. So, it is all conjecture. My guess is Obama. Sam Brinson and the tranny who just visited Biden in the oval office give us a clue as to who holds these folks in high esteem. That would be Obama.
I think everyone should remember that this president has a law degree! Wikipedia mentions he was a POOR high school student, UNEXCEPTIONAL in college, and graduated 76th (out of 85) from the University of Of Syracuse College of Law. He was much much less than a giant of intellect prior to his recent spate of apparent mental challenges. These decisions of his and his team are no surprise. Having watched his performance during Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court hearings, I was surprised even then that he could find his seat at the podium, much less be coherent. After that it just grew worse. It still is beyond rational thought as to why Barack Obama chose him as his Vice President. You could foresee all of this even then. Talking about rising to your level of incompetency! This man deserved interventions decades ago. I see far more awareness and mental acuity in store greeters. At least they can talk in complete sentences, make sense and get you pointed in the right direction when you’re in a hurry. Could Biden pass the greeter test. I don’t think so.
Jonathan Turley wrote, “The tuition forgiveness program is based on the same cynical tactic.”
“Cynical tactic”, that’s grossly understated; as far as I’m concerned it’s an ongoing anti-Constitutional and therefore illegal tactic.
I have been saying for a while that “the political left has shown its pattern of propaganda lies within their narratives so many times since 2016 that it’s beyond me why anyone would blindly accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media actively push” and this narrative that the President has the unilateral power to wipe away billions of dollars of debt legally owed to the United States with the stroke of a pen is just another pile of propaganda crap from the political left. Don’t believe the political left, they’re intentionally lying to you!
President Biden’s loan forgiveness fiat from on high is unconstitutional, yes I think it is unconstitutional. I also think President Biden knows full well that it’s unconstitutional and therefore President Biden is illegally and intentionally undermining the United States Constitution as he has intentionally done before. President Biden is abusing the power of the Office of President of the United States but what’s worse is that President Biden publicly swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” and he has done just the opposite, President Biden is actively and intentionally violating his oath of office. This illegal 11th hour election ploy to buy votes and gin up more hate against Republicans is another item to add to the list for upcoming impeachment proceedings if the Republicans take the House and Senate in November and choose that path.
As for the anti-American totalitarian imbeciles out there claiming that elected government officials intentionally violating the United States Constitution is not “illegal”, unbury your heads from that place the sun never shines, there is a clear distinction between politicians honestly thinking that what they collectively are doing is constitutional and later finding out that it’s not and a President of the United States knowing that what he is doing is unconstitutional and then intentionally doing it anyway! The United States Constitution is the law of the land and a President of the United States intentionally violating the United States Constitution is an impeachable offense. President Biden’s behavior is a blatant effort to undermine the United States Constitution and I believe it falls under the “high crimes” of impeachment.
Personally I hope the Republicans don’t impeach President Biden if they control the House and the Senate because look who’s waiting in the wings to walk into the Oval Office. If you think President Biden is bad just wait, he’s nothing compared to the wackadoodle woke havoc that a “President” Harris will unleash on the country. I hope a Republican controlled House and Senate will do what’s necessary to tie the hands of the Democratic Party controlled Executive Branch and put a rapid STOP to the slide into totalitarianism that the Democratic Party is trying to impose on the country. I hope that a Republican controlled House and Senate will formally censure President Biden for his unconstitutional actions in office and put the entire Democratic Party on notice that no more of their antics will be tolerated.
I do hope a Republican controlled House and Senate will rapidly and thoroughly investigate what’s happened on our southern border and immediately impeach the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas for literally betraying the United States of America, his actions and inactions regarding our southern border are allowing an invasion (an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity) to take place, this is treasonous. Alejandro Mayorkas needs to be removed from office and physically thrown in jail.
Also; if by some chance Nancy Pelosi gets reelected and the Republicans control the House and the Senate, I hope the House impeaches Pelosi and the Senate finds her guilty for intentionally denying President Trump his Constitutional right of due process in her January 6th witch hunt committee.
Figuratively speaking, some Democratic Party heads need to roll in Washington DC.
Steve Witherspoon. Definitely agree. Only problem is what to do with his Commander in Chief functions. China may wish to try something before a rational president gets it. Russia is already pushing it but thank goodness for Ukraine. Those people are tough.
GEB wrote, “Definitely agree. Only problem is what to do with his Commander in Chief functions. China may wish to try something before a rational president gets it. Russia is already pushing…”
The President of the United States and his staff have to work “with” Congress or absolutely nothing gets done. Congress can force their majority hand in negotiations and try to steer things like foreign policy and national security issues related to China and Russia. We still have a nation and national interests all over the world to protect and I even think that Biden want’s to do that, this is a common ground leverage point.
My question is what happens if the executive branch becomes essentially non-functional and it’s just spinning their wheels with no traction because the President is either a perpetual censured lame duck or the President becomes the equivalent of a box-o-rocks and the Republicans don’t want a President Harris so they just let President Biden rot in office. I’m not sure the Constitution covers these kinds of things.
Biden contends that the cost to the taxpayer will be offset by increased ‘fair-share taxation’ on corporations. He may be abhorrent of so-called ‘trickle down’ effect, yet the cost to the taxpayer is sure to be doubled as corporations pass the tax increase on to the consumers of their services or goods.
ZZDoc wrote, “Biden contends that the cost to the taxpayer will be offset by increased ‘fair-share taxation’ on corporations. He may be abhorrent of so-called ‘trickle down’ effect, yet the cost to the taxpayer is sure to be doubled as corporations pass the tax increase on to the consumers of their services or goods.”
That’s all irrelevant to the legality of the fiat.
What Biden contends is trying to pull the wool over our eyes with a rationalization trying to justify an anti-Constitutional, aka illegal, fiat. The President of the United States doesn’t have the unilateral power to wipe away billions of dollars of debt legally owed to the United States of America with the stroke of a pen, this is beyond the power of the Office of the President of the United States. Congress should be screaming bloody murder but the Democratic Party will rationalize anything that they think will gain them more political power, it’s all end justifies the means BS!
Gossip is that Nancy is trying to now get appointed as Ambassador to the Vatican so she and her insider trading, DWI husband with be easing their way into retirement on your tax dollars and mine.
NOTABLE CORRECTION
I think I was incorrect about impeaching Nancy Pelosi, she would have to be expelled from Congress. Impeachment is for “civil officers” and it appears that members of congress have not been included in the grouping of “civil officers”. I failed to look up the definition of “civil officers”.
Here are the two relevant sections of the Constitution.
Here is a related opinion shared on the Supreme Court’s website…
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2016/15-1251/15-1251-1.pdf
Progressive prices, shifted responsibility, redistributive change, single/central/monopolistic solutions a.k.a. trickle down economics.
“Student Loan Forgiveness”? I don’t think any American would mind forgiving a student who has excelled in their studies, comes to the market place offering America skills to propel the nation beyond others, a person who believes in individual responsibility, loves the constitution (free speech of all), loves the nation ready to defend her and finally realizes that the only person who oppresses him/her is oneself.
I might consider a “merit loan forgiveness” for a American student like that?
“. . . loan forgiveness program.”
There is no such thing as “loan forgiveness.” There is only the shifting of burden of paying that loan from those who incurred the debt to those who did *not* incur the debt. Somebody always has to pay for the debt. In other words, Biden’s “forgiveness” program is the redistribution of wealth.
“In other words, Biden’s “forgiveness” program is the redistribution of wealth.”
That would only be true if the wealth was going to poor and middleclass folks. Statistics show that the more wealthy are going to benefit and that net has a very narrow cast.
Biden’s take on the judicial process that the loan forgiveness executive order is going through makes one laugh at his claim that he was a top student in law school.
The people that support a president that has tried to give THREE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS to a favored group with no vote of congress claim that a vote for a Republican is a vote to end democracy???
The people that support a party whose DOJ sends SWAT teams out to arrest people that protested at an abortion clinic 10 months ago while not even investigating groups that fire bomb pro-life centers tells us that a vote for a Republican is a vote to end democracy and a vote for fascism???
This is life in Doublestandardstan, where having a D in front of your name is like being a party apparatchik in the old USSR.
The source of Joe Biden’s never-ending stream of dangerous and destructive actions is not his cognitive impairment. Left to his own devices, it is unlikely Joe would have the energy to do much of anything. The source of everything coming out of the Biden administration is a cabal of very smart DC Democrats. The only way to strip that cabal of its power is by electing MAGA candidates to public office in local, state, and federal elections from coast to coast.
Not surprising for someone who went mind blank during a live ‘presser’.
As Hillary would say, “At this point, what difference does it make?” To the semi-educated younger types who have their eyes set on student loan forgiveness, this is certainly one big reason to vote for the Big Guy and his side, isn’t it? Is not that the reason why this plan was concocted anyway? Of course, our vile media won’t say that, but honest people know.
Several things come to mind.
First, the Constitutionality of the federal govt’s ability to guarantee student loans in the first place; given that question, then the short sightedness of not putting in a clause in the statute to prevent the executive branch from cancelling the debt or at least explicitly providing for standing from someone/something to challenge such cancellation. Of course who would have thought in their wildest imagination that either the Executive branch/President could or would unilaterally do something like that with no oversight, or that the law was structured in such a way that no one would have the legal right to challenge a forgiveness of the debts.
The other thoughts that come to mind, is that given even a circuitous avenue of legal justification, a political entity will take the initiative and simply claim it legal, and then simply do it preemptively, not worrying about the actual legality or the subsequent fallout in the courts. The incentive is lopsided, as the worse that will happen is they can’t do it eventually, and the “best” that will happen is they will accomplished what they wanted for the months it takes a court to hear and rule on a controversy, and then just be ordered to stop. In a case like this, as JT points out, debts will be forgiven while no one can immediately do anything stop it.
It is simply Aesop’s admonition of “might makes right” being effected all over again, particularly in this Administration.
Several things come to mind.
First, the Constitutionality of the federal govt’s ability to guarantee student loans in the first place; given that question, then the short sightedness of not putting in a clause in the statute to prevent the executive branch from cancelling the debt or at least explicitly providing for standing from someone/something to challenge such cancellation. Of course who would have thought in their wildest imagination that either the Executive branch/President could or would unilaterally do something like that with no oversight, or that the law was structured in such a way that no one would have the legal right to challenge a forgiveness of the debts.
The other thoughts that come to mind, is that given even a circuitous avenue of legal justification, a political entity will take the initiative and simply claim it legal, and then simply do it preemptively, not worrying about the actual legality or the subsequent fallout in the courts. The incentive is lopsided, as the worse that will happen is they can’t do it eventually, and the “best” that will happen is they will accomplished what they wanted for the months it takes a court to hear and rule on a controversy, and then just be ordered to stop. In a case like this, as JT points out, debts will be forgiven while no one can immediately do anything stop it.
It is simply Aesop’s admonition of “might makes right” being effected all over again, particularly in this Administration.
President Biden’s unconstitutional loan forgiveness, in yet another example of how the lack of consequences for aberrant behavior, encourages more aberrant behavior.
What kind of mindless idiot considers Biden functional or adept to lead?
Joe Biden
BIDEN and his LEFT WING RADICL ADVSIORS do not care. All they hope is that they can get it thru. I am sure Biden dees not know or understand all he is told is go out and declare he is winning, just like he says there is NO RECESSION, ECONOMY IS GREAT, and he is wonderful, as those three so called Presidential Historians keep telling him.When Biden losses, he blames everyine else vs looking in the Mirror or at his nutty Radical Advisors
The Professor is right that the strict standing requirements are a problem when a constitutional violation involving the separation of powers arises, especially when the executive and legislative branches are controlled by the same party.
The Article III requirement is “cases and controversies” not particularised injuries. The latter requirement is judicially crafted to serve multiple purposes: to avoid purely partisan claims; to ensure a real interest is involved; and to prevent a deluge of cases. But the strict limitations pave the way for abuses of power, and disarm the court when it is called on to perform one of its essential functions: policing constitutional limits on the executive. There needs to be a way for members of the House and Senate comprising less than a majority to stand up for the legislative branch by challenging action in court when they believe the executive has usurped its authority.
On the merits, I think it unlikely that Congress has empowered the executive, through the Heroes Act or otherwise, to transfer in bulk these debts to the Federal government and indirectly to taxpayers. This is yet one more in a series of unconstitutional usurpations by the BIden administration, similar to Obama’s usurpation when it implemented DACA.