King Obama forgives student loans

[RobsPics]

lifestyle dude. move past the freaking taxes. If America gets nuked my life style gets flushed down the toilet, it may not effect my tax rate, but my life would suck.

lets look at it this way, imagine that in paying our taxes we are "buying" a product. The United States. Now in a free market I could choose to "spend" my taxes elsewhere, but here I am in America "buying" America. America is a product I use and depend on everyday. Everything America does as a product reflects on its value to me. So as it accumulates debt, the value of the overall product, America, diminishes. How you ask? imagine again, if you can, what would happen if our nations credit rating took a hit. that would directly effect me. so anything risking the value of the product that is America is a "punishment", no it isn't a tax rate (really don't know why you are sticking with the tax troll crap) but it directly effects me in a negative manner, aka punishment.

Furthermore, that does not even make sense. Investors *RISK* their own money all day everyday. Are they punishing themselves simply by risking something. Institutional investors risk other people's shares and assets all day everyday. Are they also punishing the shareholders simply by taking risks?

 

[RobsPics]

lifestyle dude. move past the freaking taxes. If America gets nuked my life style gets flushed down the toilet, it may not effect my tax rate, but my life would suck.

You're the one who referenced your taxes going to pay for the national debt.

 

[apevol]

can't do that ape. It would be like telling you to stop drinking. It can't be done.

I stop sometimes

 

[Sandvol]

Your premise assumes that those SSDI recipients instructed the SSA to never release health info to other branches of the fed government. It's entirely possible hat they waived their HIPPA rights when they voluntarily attempted to prove their disability tot he Federal government.

So, Obama's only granting waivers to people who've agreed to release their records? Isn't that an equal protection violation you libs are so fond of whining about?

 

[RobsPics]

So, Obama's only granting waivers to people who've agreed to release their records? Isn't that an equal protection violation you libs are so fond of whining about?

No, because not every single form of discrimination violates the Equal Protection clause. Public universities discriminate against student applicants every day because their SAT scores are too low. That doesn't mean the university has violated the EPC. Why? Because low SAT scores is not a suspect classification

Same with SSDI recipients who waived their HIPPA. That's not a suspect classification

Here's how the SCOTUS typically determines suspect classifications:

"There is no definitive list of suspect classifications, but the Supreme Court typically treats as suspect any classification of people who:

Have an inherent trait.

Have a trait that is highly visible

As a class, have been disadvantaged historically.

Are part of a group that has historically lacked effective representation in the political process.

Racial and ethnic classifications are the two suspect classifications most often given strict scrutiny."

Suspect Classification Law & Legal Definition

"What Determines a Suspect Class?

Determining whether a group constitutes a suspect class is an imprecise task. The criteria used by federal courts can shift, and some judges put more emphasis on some traits than others. Nonetheless, Justice John Paul Stevens did identify some hallmarks of a suspect class is his majority opinion in Lyng v. Castillo. Addressing the class of “close relatives,” he wrote,

“Close relatives are not a ‘suspect’ or ‘quasisuspect’ class. As a historical matter, they have not been subjected to discrimination; they do not exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group; and they are not a minority or politically powerless.”

This passage suggests that members of a suspect or quasi-suspect class will often have suffered discrimination, may be easily recognized by some characteristic, and frequently lack political power.

Perhaps the most important factor in deciding whether a group is a suspect class, though, is whether there are legitimate reasons to treat that group differently. In the case of senior citizens, for instance, there are often real reasons to treat the group separately. Seniors need greater medical attention than other citizens, and they are often less able to maintain a job. However, there are few, if any, acceptable reasons to treat African-Americans differently from other Americans. Aside from affirmative action programs and possibly some reparations-related legislation , laws treating these people differently than others would generally be legally unacceptable. As such, race is considered to be a suspect classification, while age is not."

What Level of Legal Scrutiny Should Sexual Orientation-Based Classifications Receive? | the Stanford Political Journal

 

[LouderVol]

You're the one who referenced your taxes going to pay for the national debt.

No, I said my taxes could be going towards the national debt if we weren't spending it on stupid crap.

 

[T-TownVol]

I stop sometimes

to sleep...

 

[Sandvol]

No, because not every single form of discrimination violates the Equal Protection clause. Public universities discriminate against student applicants every day because their SAT scores are too low. That doesn't mean the university has violated the EPC. Why? Because low SAT scores is not a suspect classification

Same with SSDI recipients who waived their HIPPA. That's not a suspect classification

Here's how the SCOTUS typically determines suspect classifications:

"There is no definitive list of suspect classifications, but the Supreme Court typically treats as suspect any classification of people who:

Have an inherent trait.

Have a trait that is highly visible

As a class, have been disadvantaged historically.

Are part of a group that has historically lacked effective representation in the political process.

Racial and ethnic classifications are the two suspect classifications most often given strict scrutiny."

Suspect Classification Law & Legal Definition

"What Determines a Suspect Class?

Determining whether a group constitutes a suspect class is an imprecise task. The criteria used by federal courts can shift, and some judges put more emphasis on some traits than others. Nonetheless, Justice John Paul Stevens did identify some hallmarks of a suspect class is his majority opinion in Lyng v. Castillo. Addressing the class of “close relatives,” he wrote,

“Close relatives are not a ‘suspect’ or ‘quasisuspect’ class. As a historical matter, they have not been subjected to discrimination; they do not exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group; and they are not a minority or politically powerless.”

This passage suggests that members of a suspect or quasi-suspect class will often have suffered discrimination, may be easily recognized by some characteristic, and frequently lack political power.

Perhaps the most important factor in deciding whether a group is a suspect class, though, is whether there are legitimate reasons to treat that group differently. In the case of senior citizens, for instance, there are often real reasons to treat the group separately. Seniors need greater medical attention than other citizens, and they are often less able to maintain a job. However, there are few, if any, acceptable reasons to treat African-Americans differently from other Americans. Aside from affirmative action programs and possibly some reparations-related legislation , laws treating these people differently than others would generally be legally unacceptable. As such, race is considered to be a suspect classification, while age is not."

What Level of Legal Scrutiny Should Sexual Orientation-Based Classifications Receive? | the Stanford Political Journal

So, it's only those forms of discrimination you don't agree with that violate the equal protections clause?

 

[RobsPics]

So, it's only those forms of discrimination you don't agree with that violate the equal protections clause?

No, if you read the article I posted, it's only the forms of discrimination that the SCOTUS does not agree with. The SCOTUS does not believe all discrimination is onerous, like I have outlined above.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Is being born and raised in Tennessee a disability?

Please, please, please say I qualify.

I'll see your born and raised in TN and raise you to born in TN and raised in AL.

 

[Sandvol]

No, if you read the article I posted, it's only the forms of discrimination that the SCOTUS does not agree with. The SCOTUS does not believe all discrimination is onerous, like I have outlined above.

Yes, various liberal courts have twisted the meaning of the 14th amendment over time to suit their immediate needs and ignored the 10th.

 

[RobsPics]

Yes, various liberal courts have twisted the meaning of the 14th amendment over time to suit their immediate needs and ignored the 10th.

The Founding Fathers intended the courts to interpret the law....that means interpreting the Constitution. They didn't say only conservative courts can interpret the law. If you don't like it, blame them.

 

[Vol737]

Obama beat Bernie to the punch on free education, Bernie just doesn't realize it yet. When When BO federalize the student loan programs, it was solely to create a path by which student loans could be discharged and the tab picked up by the taxpayers. Now he's completed his mission via "disabilities" that no one has to prove. That's why I get so disgusted when I watch people in the background at BO rallies/signings or Hillary/Bernie rallies. They clap and cheer like they're really part of something and they have not one damn clue exactly what they just effing heard. All they know is it sounds good and "fair".

 

[Sandvol]

The Founding Fathers intended the courts to interpret the law....that means interpreting the Constitution. They didn't say only conservative courts can interpret the law. If you don't like it, blame them.

No, I don't think so. The idea of judicial review was implemented later in Marbury v. Madison and the other two branches have gradually acquiesced their roles. But, I don't think the framers ever intended the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of the Constitution.

 

[Sandvol]

As a matter of fact the states are the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution via Article 5.

 

[RobsPics]

No, I don't think so. The idea of judicial review was implemented later in Marbury v. Madison and the other two branches have gradually acquiesced their roles. But, I don't think the framers ever intended the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of the Constitution.

Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the Federalist Papers, which pre-date Marbury v. Madison. Namely #78. To wit:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

The Federalist #78

 

[RobsPics]

Obama beat Bernie to the punch on free education, Bernie just doesn't realize it yet. When When BO federalize the student loan programs, it was solely to create a path by which student loans could be discharged and the tab picked up by the taxpayers. Now he's completed his mission via "disabilities" that no one has to prove. That's why I get so disgusted when I watch people in the background at BO rallies/signings or Hillary/Bernie rallies. They clap and cheer like they're really part of something and they have not one damn clue exactly what they just effing heard. All they know is it sounds good and "fair".

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

 

[82_VOL_83]

People pay taxes. Just because people pay taxes does not mean anyone is punished by King Obama's loan forgiveness. Because people's tax rate are remain unchanged regardless of King Obama's loan forgiveness.

Thus is a prime example of why this country is in such trouble.

 

[RobsPics]

What...nobody wants to continue the argument that King Obama "federalized" the student loan programs?? LOL weak sauce.

 

[Sandvol]

Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the Federalist Papers, which pre-date Marbury v. Madison. Namely #78. To wit:

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

The Federalist #78

Not every idea in the Federalist papers was implemented in the Constitution. And, the Federalist papers were three guys who all had distinctly different ideas.

 

[RobsPics]

Not every idea in the Federalist papers was implemented in the Constitution. And, the Federalist papers were three guys who all had distinctly different ideas.

Now you are moving the goalposts.

First you suggested the Founding Fathers did not intend for judicial review. Then when I cited the Federalist Paper #78, you changed your argument.

Secondly, I know of no other Founding Father who specifically disputed Alexander Hamilton's proposition for judicial review as outlined in #78. Thomas Jefferson even said that the Federalist Papers are the general opinion of the Founding Fathers. So since you are the one disputing that the Founding Fathers intended judicial review, where is your evidence for such a claim?

 

[RobsPics]

"The book known by the title of “The Federalist,” being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning." - Thomas Jefferson 1825

But now you're saying the FF did not intend for judicial review, which therefore means the FF disputed the legitimacy of Federalist #78. Not plausible.

 

[Sandvol]

Now you are moving the goalposts.

First you suggested the Founding Fathers did not intend for judicial review. Then when I cited the Federalist Paper #78, you changed your argument.

Secondly, I know of no other Founding Father who specifically disputed Alexander Hamilton's proposition for judicial review as outlined in #78. Thomas Jefferson even said that the Federalist Papers are the general opinion of the Founding Fathers. So since you are the one disputing that the Founding Fathers intended judicial review, where is your evidence for such a claim?

I'm not moving the goal posts. The Federalists Papers are not the Constitution. They are a collection of ideas by three men who supported the idea of a Constitution. Some of their ideas made it into the Constitution and some did not. Please show in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court will be its ultimate interpreter.

 

[Sandvol]

"The book known by the title of “The Federalist,” being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning." - Thomas Jefferson 1825

But now you're saying the FF did not intend for judicial review, which therefore means the FF disputed the legitimacy of Federalist #78. Not plausible.

Sure it is.

 

[RobsPics]

I'm not moving the goal posts. The Federalists Papers are not the Constitution. They are a collection of ideas by three men who supported the idea of a Constitution. Some of their ideas made it into the Constitution and some did not.

You are the one who claimed that the Founding Fathers did not intend for judicial review. Where's your proof?

Please show in the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court will be its ultimate interpreter.

I thought you said you weren't moving the goals posts? But your follow-up question to me is the epitome of moving the goal posts. Because first you claimed the FF did not intend for judicial review. Now, after I cited the Federalist papers and Jefferson's acknowledgement of those papers, you are changing the subject to the Constitution. In case you forgot, my original claim (that you disputed) was in regards to the Founding Fathers intent, not necessarily the exact words of the Constitution.

Sure it is.

Well if you say so...

Thomas Jefferson, on the other has, is on record saying the Federalist Papers are the general opinion of the Founding Fathers. I'll trust his claims before yours.