Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Hi there... Can you please quickly check to make sure your email address is up to date here? Just in case we need to reach out to you or you lose your password. Muchero thanks!

The Fuhrer removes the Orlando State Attorney from office

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator_lawyer, Aug 9, 2023.

Page 8 of 8
  1. Jun 9, 2024 #141
    Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,955
    848
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    Yeah? And which ones are that? lol

    Also, are you suggesting any delegation made by Congress is Constitutionally valid?

    The fact that Joe Biden is still trying this as of May 2024 gives away the game. He didn’t pursue the policy because of the pandemic. He pursued it because it happens to be policy he likes, probably because pumping money to their constituents is the oldest play in the Democrats’ playbook.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2024
  2. Jun 9, 2024 #142
    gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    18,233
    6,181
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    It depends on which loan forgiveness you're talking about. There are multiple sources of authority.
    I am suggesting that the only delegation I could see as invalid would be delegating the whole of Congress's legislative power to the Executive.
    His motive is irrelevant. Congress delegated the authority.
     
  3. Jun 9, 2024 #143
    Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,955
    848
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    Let's stick to the one from the article I shared earlier.

    That is an extremely overbroad interpretation of Congress's authority to delegate.

    It's absolutely relevant. It suggests that the pandemic was an excuse to enact policy Joe Biden likes and still likes rather than an emergency situation prompting emergency action.

    Classic abuse of authority, dare I say authoritarian.
     
  4. Jun 9, 2024 #144
    gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    18,233
    6,181
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    The press release you posted earlier is based on Public Service Loan Forgiveness (created under the Bush administration); the SAVE Plan, which relies on the Higher Education Act; and income-driven repayment, also under the Higher Education Act.
    Nope. It is both consistent with the Constitution and the founding generation's understanding of it.
    Motive remains irrelevant. The statute permitted the Secretary of Education to forgive student loans as he deemed necessary in connection with a war, military operation, or national emergency. You can continue to try and argue motive based on information not even in existence at the time, but it'll remain irrelevant. The statute didn't have a mens rea requirement lol.

    If helping people using authority delegated to the Executive by Congress is "authoritarian" to you, you either don't know what the word means or are an unserious person.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Jun 9, 2024 #145
    BigCypressGator1981

    BigCypressGator1981 GC Hall of Fame

    6,707
    1,374
    3,103
    Oct 11, 2011
    We should all go in on a gift certificate to Ruby Tuesday’s for 715 when he passes the bar exam.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Jun 9, 2024 #146
    Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,955
    848
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    We're talking in circles.

    "Student loan forgiveness on the scale proposed in these regulations clearly meets the major economic or political threshold. The overturned loan forgiveness plan was estimated to cost around $500 billion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates this one would cost $250–750 billion once you include the economic hardship provisions (which are still under development)."

    https://www.cato.org/blog/bidens-newest-folly-student-loan-forgiveness

    Delegation on this level is a phenomenon that began in the 20th century.

    If this was the founding generation's understanding of separation of powers and delegation of powers, why did SCOTUS typically reject delegations from Congress to the Executive Branch until the 20th century?

    I'm not arguing that the statute had a mens rea requirement. I made my point exactly as I wrote it: "It suggests that the pandemic was an excuse to enact policy Joe Biden likes and still likes rather than an emergency situation prompting emergency action."

    I've already provided the Merriam-Webster definition of authoritarianism on this very thread.

    Authoritarianism: "of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people."

    Definition of AUTHORITARIAN

    Let's see:
    1) Favoring concentration of power: The President has more unchecked power under your view (and his view). Check.
    2) In a leader or an elite: The President is a leader and elite, as is the Secretary of Education. Check.
    3) Not Constitutionally responsible to the people. The President and Secretary of Education are acting beyond the scope of their authority, the President is elected but is one person, the Secretary of Education isn't. The President in acting beyond the scope of his authority, is diluting the will of the people, and is thereby acting in authoritarian fashion in a manner consistent with the use of the word on this forum. Trump and DeSantis are accountable to the people, they have always been accountable to the people, and were both elected. That hasn't stopped people like you from characterizing both of them as authoritarians. So no, if we're being fair, Biden doesn't deserve to get off the hook just because he was elected. He acts as though his power is absurdly broad in scope, effectively centralizing the power of the federal government, and thereby undermining separation of powers and the will of the people. Check.
     
  7. Jun 10, 2024 #147
    gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    18,233
    6,181
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    This argument you're quoting is premised on the so-called "Major Questions Doctrine." It is a judicially created doctrine that the Republicans in power on SCOTUS dramatically expanded to allow them to ignore statutory text and overturn policies they dislike. I reject it as a valid legal doctrine. Instead, it is an unconstitutional power grab that violates separation of powers, so I reject any argument premised on it.
    SCOTUS never once rejected a delegation from Congress to the Executive until the Lochner Court did it in the 20th century. Am I wrong on that? If so, please cite the cases.

    Worth a read:
    Delegation at the Founding
    Which remains irrelevant. The statute does not inquire into motive. It delegates to the Secretary of Education the authority to forgive student loans where he deems it necessary in connection with war, a military operation, or a national emergency.
    1. The President's power isn't unchecked. It's checked specifically by Congress and the judiciary. In the case of the delegated authority, Congress granted it; Congress can revoke it.
    2. So we're an authoritarian county because we have a President? Okay. LOL.
    3. The President didn't act in excess of his authority and remains constitutionally responsible to the people. Problem solved.
     
Page 8 of 8