Is the Student Loan giveaway legal? (tuition, salary, requirements, exam)

[redguard57]

Whoever challenges this will have to face the political costs of effectively "raising taxes" by 10k on millions of people. They won't do it.

What's done is done.

[jtab4994]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

In order for the issue to make its way to SCOTUS, there must be litigation. It isn't clear who would have standing to initiate such a law suit such that it could make its way to SCOTUS.

Why wouldn't any taxpayer have standing? Whose money is being spent?

Surely, anyone who paid back their loans early and is then shut out of the giveaway, or anyone who worked a second job to avoid loans in the first place, would have standing.

[Mistermobile]

https://www.lexology.com/library/det...c-e489be910288

The Constitution and the Supreme Court precedent prevents states from interfering in binding contracts. The Constitution also strictly limits what the federal govn't can do. Mostly just national defense. That's why the wackos say they don't have to pay federal income tax.

I heard that Biden is using emergency powers granted the executive branch (he) related to Covid. Pretty thin this late in the game. Meanwhile, colleges are rubbing their hands. Entitlements, once enacted, become radioactive. Never undone.


What's next? Credit Card Debt?

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by tnff

I would argue Congress. The Constitution limits the ability appropriate funds to Congress. The President executes the funded programs only within the limit of the funds appropriated. He cannot exceed the appropriation. Various laws and acts may have language that allows the Secretary of ED or the President to forgive loans, but I doubt has appropriated the roughly half a trillion dollars under discussion here. The President has only limited ability to move funds around within those appropriations as well.

So this is far from a done deal and will likely get challenged before it ever gets implemented.

More specifically,

The Constitution not only grants to Congress the power to tax and spend to “pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare;” it adds that only Congress can authorize these payments (Article I Section 9 cl. 7: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law”).

But it isn't clear a Biden-issued Executive Order stating "don't pay back your student loan" would violate the above, because quite literally no one is drawing money from the Treasury.

Insert the countries top constitutional scholars into the mix, and of course, it is up for grabs.

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by TMSRetired

I would imagine that any taxpayer could bring suit...it's their money being flushed away.

That isn't clear either. Under the Constitution, federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction.” They can’t decide issues—even really, really important ones—just because people really, really want them to. The language of Article III limits federal courts to deciding “cases or controversies,” meaning real disputes where each party has something real—not just a difference of opinion about the law—in the game.

A taxpayer not liking how money is spent doesn't rise to the level of standing, at least as I understand it. Moreover, no one is removing cash from the Treasury in any literal sense, and no one is flushing it away in any literal or figurative sense. Deciding not to collect debts isn't the same thing in a literal sense.

I'll defer to any actual constitutional scholar.

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by jtab4994

Why wouldn't any taxpayer have standing? Whose money is being spent?

First, I'm not a constitutional scholar.

Second, this is the United States of America, not the United Taxpayers of America.

Could a State sue? More likely to have standing, but not it isn't clear. Again, I'll defer to any constitutional scholar.

[redguard57]

Suit could be brought by pretty much anybody with the money.

SCOTUS could say "HEROES Act didn't give you that power." "Okay," white house says.

They could reissue the policy claiming authority under The Higher Education Act which is tbe statutary authority for student loans. It gives the executive branch the power to forgive education debt. Says it straight up. Then they'd have to declare unconstitutional the HEA. That is a BIG can of worms right there.

Also... I think you guys are not taking into account that this would be a legal fight the Democrats would relish.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

More specifically,

The Constitution not only grants to Congress the power to tax and spend to “pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare;” it adds that only Congress can authorize these payments (Article I Section 9 cl. 7: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law”).

But it isn't clear a Biden-issued Executive Order stating "don't pay back your student loan" would violate the above, because quite literally no one is drawing money from the Treasury.

Insert the countries top constitutional scholars into the mix, and of course, it is up for grabs.

The question would be where did the money for those loans come from? If it came from the Treasury, then it would become an expense when marked off the books. Probably somewhere in the budget there is an appropriate for some small amount of dollars to cover defaulted or forgiven loans. Which would not be enough to the total under discussion here.

Originally Posted by redguard57

Suit could be brought by pretty much anybody with the money.

SCOTUS could say "HEROES Act didn't give you that power." "Okay," white house says.

They could reissue the policy claiming authority under The Higher Education Act which is tbe statutary authority for student loans. It gives the executive branch the power to forgive education debt. Says it straight up. Then they'd have to declare unconstitutional the HEA. That is a BIG can of worms right there.

Also... I think you guys are not taking into account that this would be a legal fight the Democrats would relish.

They wouldn't have to declare the Act unconstitutional; only affirm the Executive Branch cannot expend funds not appropriated by Congress.

[redguard57]

Originally Posted by tnff

The question would be where did the money for those loans come from? If it came from the Treasury, then it would become an expense when marked off the books. Probably somewhere in the budget there is an appropriate for some small amount of dollars to cover defaulted or forgiven loans. Which would not be enough to the total under discussion here.



They wouldn't have to declare the Act unconstitutional; only affirm the Executive Branch cannot expend funds not appropriated by Congress.

They would have to change the definition of "expend." They're not expending anything.

[Ceece]

Originally Posted by redguard57

Whoever challenges this will have to face the political costs of effectively "raising taxes" by 10k on millions of people. They won't do it.

What's done is done.

I wouldn't be too sure. But hey could forgive the interest and adjust the payments to no more than 5% of income and most would go for that.