4 ms·

Here's one side https://www.businessinsider.com/is-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-legal-george-miller-architect-heroes-2023-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/is

• lockhouse 4y ago
  Here's the other... "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." - Article I, Section 9, United States Constitution
  • dataflow 4y ago
    Confused. Law includes statutes. Are you suggesting the statute is unconstitutional?
    • endominus 4y ago
      AFAIK, it's literally the job of the Supreme Court to decide if laws are unconstitutional, and this news article suggests that they consider it so.
      • dataflow 4y ago
        I haven't seen any sign that they think the statute was unconstitutional. It sounds more like they think the statute intended to have a narrower scope than a literal reading of the word "waiver" would imply. (Perhaps in their eyes it meant "on an individual basis", or something that doesn't apply to the majority of the subjects, etc.)
  • lapcat 4y ago
    > No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law The money has already been drawn. The loans were disbursed, the colleges paid years ago. The pending student loan payments in question are not in the treasury yet; many never will be regardless of the outcome of this case.
  • rcme 4y ago
    Apparently, Biden believes he is deriving his authority from the HEROS act, which is a law, so Article I, Section 9 wouldn’t apply, even if you did consider Biden’s action drawing money from the treasury.