Title : How far into the NYT article "Biden to Cancel $10,000 in Student Debt" must we read before we see anything about the President's power to do such a thing?
link : How far into the NYT article "Biden to Cancel $10,000 in Student Debt" must we read before we see anything about the President's power to do such a thing?
How far into the NYT article "Biden to Cancel $10,000 in Student Debt" must we read before we see anything about the President's power to do such a thing?
Here's the article, "Biden to Cancel $10,000 in Student Debt; Low-Income Students Are Eligible for More/The debt forgiveness comes after months of deliberations in the White House over fairness and fears that the plan could make inflation worse ahead of the midterm elections."Because Mr. Biden used executive action, rather than legislation, to forgive the loans, legal challenges are expected. It is unclear, however, who would have the standing to press their case in court. A recent Virginia Law Review article argued that the answer might be no one: States, for example, have little say in the operation of a federal loan system.
That's a law student note on the subject of standing. Maybe no court will be able to reach the merits of the question of the President's power. I'm just noticing that the word "power" doesn't appear anywhere in this article. We're told "Biden used executive action." Did he do it yet? I thought he just announced a plan.
Anyway, writing "Biden used executive action" rather than "Biden used executive power" suggests doubt about whether the President indeed has the power. Or maybe it's simply an unwillingness to address the question of executive power. That's why the question of standing seems so appealing: The courts can't talk about it either. But the President still needs a legal basis for his power, and he ought to be able to articulate it to the public. But — shhh! — maybe people won't notice.
Paragraphs 17-26: We move on, away from law. We're given some policy points: It's a good idea to cancel the small debts that are in default. Maybe eliminate interest.
Paragraph 27: Law makes a flitting appearance:
But inside the White House, Mr. Biden’s top aides were debating the political and economic ramifications of the decision. According to people familiar with his thinking, the president was concerned that loan cancellation would be seen as a giveaway that would be an affront to those who had paid their or their relative’s tuition. Some top aides also argued that Mr. Biden lacked the legal authority to move forward with the sweeping loan forgiveness and that he should work with Congress instead of using executive action.
So some people noticed there's a question of legal authority. Did they not sketch out the legal argument? Did they not think the people would want to know? Or was the idea to get a big proposal out there for political impact now and push the legal question years into the future and possibly — with the help of standing doctrine — into oblivion?
Paragraphs 28-37 (the end): Nope. Nothing.
The answer to the question in the post title is Paragraph 16. The answer to the question in boldface at the beginning of the post — What legal basis did President Biden cite for his power to cancel student debt? — is that this article never says whether he said anything at all about the need for power.
I suspect the answer to that question is "none," so I'm going to let go of my suspicion that "less than 1% of Americans, if surveyed now, could correctly answer the question." I think a good chunk of Americans are savvy — or cynical — enough to say: NONE!
But is that the correct answer? Must I comb through the President's speech?
Because Mr. Biden used executive action, rather than legislation, to forgive the loans, legal challenges are expected. It is unclear, however, who would have the standing to press their case in court. A recent Virginia Law Review article argued that the answer might be no one: States, for example, have little say in the operation of a federal loan system.
That's a law student note on the subject of standing. Maybe no court will be able to reach the merits of the question of the President's power. I'm just noticing that the word "power" doesn't appear anywhere in this article. We're told "Biden used executive action." Did he do it yet? I thought he just announced a plan.
Anyway, writing "Biden used executive action" rather than "Biden used executive power" suggests doubt about whether the President indeed has the power. Or maybe it's simply an unwillingness to address the question of executive power. That's why the question of standing seems so appealing: The courts can't talk about it either. But the President still needs a legal basis for his power, and he ought to be able to articulate it to the public. But — shhh! — maybe people won't notice.
Paragraphs 17-26: We move on, away from law. We're given some policy points: It's a good idea to cancel the small debts that are in default. Maybe eliminate interest.
Paragraph 27: Law makes a flitting appearance:
But inside the White House, Mr. Biden’s top aides were debating the political and economic ramifications of the decision. According to people familiar with his thinking, the president was concerned that loan cancellation would be seen as a giveaway that would be an affront to those who had paid their or their relative’s tuition. Some top aides also argued that Mr. Biden lacked the legal authority to move forward with the sweeping loan forgiveness and that he should work with Congress instead of using executive action.
So some people noticed there's a question of legal authority. Did they not sketch out the legal argument? Did they not think the people would want to know? Or was the idea to get a big proposal out there for political impact now and push the legal question years into the future and possibly — with the help of standing doctrine — into oblivion?
Paragraphs 28-37 (the end): Nope. Nothing.
The answer to the question in the post title is Paragraph 16. The answer to the question in boldface at the beginning of the post — What legal basis did President Biden cite for his power to cancel student debt? — is that this article never says whether he said anything at all about the need for power.
I suspect the answer to that question is "none," so I'm going to let go of my suspicion that "less than 1% of Americans, if surveyed now, could correctly answer the question." I think a good chunk of Americans are savvy — or cynical — enough to say: NONE!
But is that the correct answer? Must I comb through the President's speech?
Thus articles How far into the NYT article "Biden to Cancel $10,000 in Student Debt" must we read before we see anything about the President's power to do such a thing?
You now read the article How far into the NYT article "Biden to Cancel $10,000 in Student Debt" must we read before we see anything about the President's power to do such a thing? with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2022/08/how-far-into-nyt-article-biden-to.html
0 Response to "How far into the NYT article "Biden to Cancel $10,000 in Student Debt" must we read before we see anything about the President's power to do such a thing?"
Post a Comment