3 ms·

> The court ruled that Biden can't I think you should read about the case, which you haven't. The ruling was over someone who wanted in on the forgiveness, no

> The court ruled that Biden can't I think you should read about the case, which you haven't. The ruling was over someone who wanted in on the forgiveness, not challenging the ability to prescribe it. Laws do not solely reside in the Constitution, even after including Congressional bills. In the USA, laws are only one class of rules that people are subject to. POTUS oversees (directs execution) of various agencies that have their own rules and regulations. These are also, ultimately, controlled by Congress as fast as bills can be passed (which isn't very fast) making POTUS the de-facto controller of the vast majority of actions these agencies take (usually, by proxy). To say it's unconstitutional, requires that any Presidential action to affect regulation must be approved by Congress. Congress can craft a bill to override it. Unconstitutional usually means that it affects the rights of individuals unduly. This is not the case.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Yeah, thanks for assuming the best about me. Your last paragraph has lots of words, but completely misses the point. The ruling said that the President can't spend the money without Congressional authorization. That is what makes it unconstitutional - the President can't spend money by executive order unless it's previously authorized.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > but completely misses the point. It does not. You think the point is to reiterate what's already been said. > The ruling said that the President can't spend the money without Congressional authorization. The ruling is an interpretation that makes no sense on its face, which is not unusual for many courts. The President isn't spending money. He doesn't literally write a check. Direction (executive branch) has costs associated with actions. He certainly can direct from a written order. The line of thinking from the ruling is paradoxical. If congress was required to have an audit of the costs for any action POTUS (or any part of the executive) took, that would incur a cost, effectively removing the power of the Executive and miring the process in recursion hell without recourse. Currently, the legislative still has recourse, but the ruling directly mentions that the ruling is a critique about Constitutionality being breached between the branches without any relation to the case at hand. Note the ruling, in effect, was against the plaintiffs who were funded by people interested in challenging the law. All parties, being politically motivated, is what makes it a political ruling, which is not unusual, despite the reasoning.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

Yeah, thanks for assuming the best about me. Your last paragraph has lots of words, but completely misses the point. The ruling said that the President can't spend the money without Congressional authorization. That is what makes it unconstitutional - the President can't spend money by executive order unless it's previously authorized.

Supermancho 4y ago
> but completely misses the point. It does not. You think the point is to reiterate what's already been said. > The ruling said that the President can't spend the money without Congressional authorization. The ruling is an interpretation that makes no sense on its face, which is not unusual for many courts. The President isn't spending money. He doesn't literally write a check. Direction (executive branch) has costs associated with actions. He certainly can direct from a written order. The line of thinking from the ruling is paradoxical. If congress was required to have an audit of the costs for any action POTUS (or any part of the executive) took, that would incur a cost, effectively removing the power of the Executive and miring the process in recursion hell without recourse. Currently, the legislative still has recourse, but the ruling directly mentions that the ruling is a critique about Constitutionality being breached between the branches without any relation to the case at hand. Note the ruling, in effect, was against the plaintiffs who were funded by people interested in challenging the law. All parties, being politically motivated, is what makes it a political ruling, which is not unusual, despite the reasoning.