King Obama forgives student loans

[RobsPics]

Hell, even the Anti-Federalist papers did not dispute the legitimacy of judicial review. It mostly argued against a SCOTUS fearing that it could over power state autonomy.

So where's the evidence that the Founding Fathers were against judicial review? If they were against it, surely it would have appeared in the anti-Federalist papers.

 

[Sandvol]

Hell, even the Anti-Federalist papers did not dispute the legitimacy of judicial review. It mostly argued against a SCOTUS fearing that it could over power state autonomy.

So where's the evidence that the Founding Fathers were against judicial review? If they were against it, surely it would have appeared in the anti-Federalist papers.

The Constitution was established on the basis of co-equal branches of government. Five unelected judges should not be able to tell a state like Tennessee that it must recognize gay marriage. That is a 10th amendment issue. You know that amendment that the Supreme Court ignores.

 

[tumscalcium]

The Constitution was established on the basis of co-equal branches of government. Five unelected judges should not be able to tell a state like Tennessee that it must recognize gay marriage. That is a 10th amendment issue. You know that amendment that the Supreme Court ignores.

Oh no no no no no no no.
That dude is ALLLLL about states rights.

Just ask him about the illegal aliens wanting in-state tuition.

 

[Sandvol]

Oh no no no no no no no.
That dude is ALLLLL about states rights.

Just ask him about the illegal aliens wanting in-state tuition.

These liberals kill me. They're all for judicial review. But, it is really judicial activism. How are the branches co-equal under this system as it has evolved? Who checks the judicial branch? I'll answer that, no one.

 

[tumscalcium]

These liberals kill me. They're all for judicial review. But, it is really judicial activism. How are the branches co-equal under this system as it has evolved? Who checks the judicial branch? I'll answer that, no one.

Indeed.

 

[Outofmyvolcanmind]

.

 

[RobsPics]

The Constitution was established on the basis of co-equal branches of government. Five unelected judges should not be able to tell a state like Tennessee that it must recognize gay marriage. That is a 10th amendment issue. You know that amendment that the Supreme Court ignores.

Moving the goalposts again...but anyhow, the SCOTUS never said any state must exercise the marriage power. Because the individual state has the exclusive right to decide whether to exercise the marriage power (10th Amendment). If the State voluntarily chooses to recognize marriage, it has to exercise that power it in accordance to the 14th Amendment.

 

[Sandvol]

Moving the goalposts again...but anyhow, the SCOTUS never said any state must exercise the marriage power. Because the individual state has the exclusive right to decide whether to exercise the marriage power (10th Amendment). If the State voluntarily chooses to recognize marriage, it has to exercise that power it in accordance to the 14th Amendment.

You're making a lawyer argument. Your lawyer argument assumes no checks on the courts.

It's really nice of your SCOTUS to not tell the states what they must do but then turn around and tell them what they must do.

The 14th amendment is about treating freed former slaves equally as citizens. It doesn't say anything about marriage.

The SCOTUS is reading into the amendment what isn't there and then actively deciding the law. That's not what your writer of 78 says is their responsibility. He says their responsibility is to check the legislature.

You want to make it a Federalist 78 argument which if you read all of it and not take any one sentence out of context it supports limited government and how it is the responsibility of the courts to limit government and not actively make law. How are they being checked?

 

[Vol737]

King Obama "federalized" the student loan program? Uh...

"The federal government began guaranteeing student loans provided by banks and non-profit lenders in 1965, creating the program that is now called the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. The first federal student loans, however, provided under the National Defense Education Act of 1958, were direct loans capitalized with U.S. Treasury funds, following a recommendation of economist Milton Friedman. But when Congress wanted to expand on that start, budget rules made the guarantee approach seem more attractive."

Atlas

You are correct. Bad choice of words on my part, but the fact remains. Obama "fully federalized", for lack of a better term, college loans via the Dept of Education being the sole lender, removing banks and other private lending institutions from the program. So, effectively, he has set the stage with this new provision for anyone to discharge the debt without having to prove a thing, passing along the cost to taxpayers which goes to the bottom line of our national debt. Split hairs any way you want, but this was exactly his intent with this stupid provision he signed off on. And what's worse, you clearly think this is just fine.

 

[RobsPics]

You're making a lawyer argument. Your lawyer argument assumes no checks on the courts.

It's really nice of your SCOTUS to not tell the states what they must do but then turn around and tell them what they must do.

The 14th amendment is about treating freed former slaves equally as citizens. It doesn't say anything about marriage.

Except the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not say anything limiting it only to slaves.

The SCOTUS is reading into the amendment what isn't there and then actively deciding the law. That's not what your writer of 78 says is their responsibility. He says their responsibility is to check the legislature.

Hamilton also said that a constitution is a fundamental law, and thus it is the court's duty to determine its meaning.

You want to make it a Federalist 78 argument which if you read all of it and not take any one sentence out of context it supports limited government and how it is the responsibility of the courts to limit government and not actively make law. How are they being checked?

Now you are moving the goal posts again. Your original position was that the Founding Fathers did not intent for judicial review. But now you are pivoting to a different issue. I never claimed that the SCOTUS has equal checks on it similar to the executive or legislature. I acknowledge that the SCOTUS has weaker checks placed on it.

 

[RobsPics]

You are correct. Bad choice of words on my part, but the fact remains. Obama "fully federalized", for lack of a better term, college loans via the Dept of Education being the sole lender, removing banks and other private lending institutions from the program. So, effectively, he has set the stage with this new provision for anyone to discharge the debt without having to prove a thing, passing along the cost to taxpayers which goes to the bottom line of our national debt. Split hairs any way you want, but this was exactly his intent with this stupid provision he signed off on. And what's worse, you clearly think this is just fine.

Except the disability discharge of student loans has been available for years. The Fed Gov was guaranteeing those private lender loans for decades. So is curious why you are blaming Obama, since the Fed government had already been discharging student loans owed by disabled people prior to his presidency.

 

[RobsPics]

The Constitution was established on the basis of co-equal branches of government. Five unelected judges should not be able to tell a state like Tennessee that it must recognize gay marriage. That is a 10th amendment issue. You know that amendment that the Supreme Court ignores.

That's just based on "faith", because congress can remove judges through impeachment process. But the opposite is not true... judges can't remove any congress member. That alone contradicts the co-equal argument.

 

[red butler]

Except the disability discharge of student loans has been available for years. The Fed Gov was guaranteeing those private lender loans for decades. So is curious why you are blaming Obama, since the Fed government had already been discharging student loans owed by disabled people prior to his presidency.

If it's been available for years, isn't this just another in a long line of solving problems that don't exist?

 

[RobsPics]

If it's been available for years, isn't this just another in a long line of solving problems that don't exist?

Disabled people who ow student loans don;t exist?