Biden

Judge Quotes Pelosi In Striking Down Biden Student Debt Cancellation

Published on 10 months ago

From day one of former President Barack Obama’s first term, January 20, 2009, pro-amnesty activists demanded that Obama use his position to push through amnesty, without congressional approval.

Obama originally admitted that he did not have the authority to fulfill the mob’s wishes, but after a few years, figured out a workaround to even his own legal opinion.

The woke activist president ended up arbitrability giving protection, against deportation, for children brought illegally into the US by their families; DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

In July 2021 US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about the left’s demand that President Biden arbitrarily gives student loan debt relief to millions of Americans.

Pelosi’s comment came back to bite her as it was quoted by a federal judge in striking down President Joe Biden’s student debt transfer program, adding the program violates fundamental safeguards of liberty in the Constitution.

Job Creators Network (JCN) filed a challenge to Biden’s $400 billion vote-buying program, which Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas struck down Thursday.

“The Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress,” Pittman began, quoting Article I of the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson on the first page of his 26-page decision. The judge explained that the Constitution’s separation of powers, giving different powers to Congress, the president, and the courts, is foundational to the constitutional freedoms of American citizens.

In the opinion, the judge quoted Pelosi – who even after Tuesday’s disappointing GOP performance appears to be the outgoing Speaker – showcasing that even a liberal Democrat leader recognizes that the Constitution’s structural safeguards cannot be violated.

“People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness… He does not,” said Pelosi in July, dutifully quoted by the federal judge. The Speaker continued, “He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power. That has to be [accomplished through] an act of Congress.”

JNC’s D.C. legal power player Karen Harned Harned tapped Michael Connelly of Consovoy McCarthy to tackle Biden’s transfer of student debt from college students to other Americans in Brown v. Department of Education.

They brought this case in one of the most conservative judicial districts in America, the Northern District of Texas, where it will now go on appeal to the most conservative federal appeals court, the Fifth Circuit.

Judge Pittman agreed with JCN’s arguments as to why the federal law did not give Biden and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona the sweeping power they claimed to possess.

“Under our system of government, public policy is typically made by the Congress through a negotiated-and-reasoned process among the members, with input from the President,” Pittman explained, “and based on how Congress legislated, those members would then be held accountable by their constituents each election cycle.”

Pittman concluded his order by explaining the principles of constitutional government at stake in the litigation:

This case involves the question of whether Congress—through the HEROES Act—gave the Secretary authority to implement a Program that provides debt forgiveness to millions of student-loan borrowers, totaling over $400 billion. Whether the Program constitutes good public policy is not the role of this Court to determine. Still, no one can plausibly deny that it is either one of the largest delegations of legislative power to the executive branch, or one of the largest exercises of legislative power without congressional authority in the history of the United States.

In this country, we are not ruled by an all-powerful executive with a pen and a phone. Instead, we are ruled by a Constitution that provides for three distinct and independent branches of government. As President James Madison warned, “[t]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The Federalist No. 47.

The Court is not blind to the current political division in our country. But it is fundamental to the survival of our Republic that the separation of powers as outlined in our Constitution be preserved. And having interpreted the HEROES Act, the Court holds that it does not provide “clear congressional authorization” for the Program proposed by the Secretary.

The Biden administration is expected to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.