Biden's Eviction Overreach
By: MSN
Talk about defiance against the rule of law.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Center for Disease Control's eviction moratorium, which was first instituted last September under President Trump and was renewed under President Biden, expired on July 31.
© Jonathan Ernst/Reuters President Joe Biden delivers remarks at the White House in Washington, D.C., August 3, 2021.
That sentence should start alarm bells ringing in the heads of any American who has read the Constitution. The Center for Disease Control's . . . what?
Insofar as it is legitimate for any government entity in the United States to engage in an "eviction moratorium," it is quite obviously a question for the states and localities, not for the federal government — and certainly not for an executive agency whose remit is the study and containment of infectious diseases. That, for eleven months, the American rental sector was controlled by the director of the CDC is nothing short of astonishing. Americans who wonder why they have such trouble keeping their government in check should look at this incident for instruction.
Video: Biden to allow eviction moratorium to expire Saturday (Associated Press)T
In June, the Supreme Court confirmed that, by acquiescing to the request, the CDC had "exceeded its existing statutory authority" and was obliged to stop by the end of the month. In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh suggested that the program could continue only in the wake of "clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation)." Alas, despite his team's insistence that he is aware of this ruling — and, indeed, that he has "not only kicked the tires, he has double, triple, quadruple checked" its legality — Biden was cowed by a chorus line of progressives who have urged him to defy it. At a press conference held late Tuesday afternoon, Biden conceded that "the bulk of the constitutional scholars say it's not likely to pass constitutional muster." But Biden and his CDC, under pressure from the Left, issued a new moratorium anyway. The Supreme Court, which has thus far been notably restrained in its language, must make it clear that they cannot.
It is telling that Congress, which has been happy to spend trillions of dollars fighting COVID-19, has nevertheless declined to change the law — perhaps because, the legalities aside, it has realized that the moratorium is making a mess of its others. One of the core aims of the various relief bills that have been signed since last year has been to prevent unemployed Americans from getting behind on their bills — including rent — during periods in which they were unable to work. And yet, by adding an eviction moratorium on top of its spending — and, thereby, by deferring rent arrears into the future — the federal government has managed simultaneously to limit the immediate demand for its $46.6 billion rent-assistance program, to discourage renters from finding work, and to ensure that the brunt of both problems will be felt by the millions of small-time landlords who do not have access to the Treasury's largesse.
Over the course of the COVID-19 crisis, the federal government has provided an extraordinary amount of financial support to struggling families. Analysis from Garrett Watson at the Tax Foundation found that a single-earner family of four that made $60,000 per year prior to the pandemic received almost $70,000 in COVID-relief benefits from April of last year to September of this year. Thus far, the mitigation bill sits at a remarkable $5 trillion — more money than the federal government spent in total in all of 2019. Given our rising federal debt, and the higher-than-usual risk of inflation, it would be unwise for Washington, D.C., to add to this number. But, if it must, it should do so in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution and that will not undermine Congress's broader aims. A moratorium on evictions doesn't match either of those descriptions. It must not be allowed to stand.
Tags
Who is online
53 visitors
Well if he could have gotten Congress off their asses, this wouldn't be an issue. However at this point that isn't the case and the administration AND Congress are scoffing at the law as well as the ruling of SCotUS. One would think that Congress should have jumped on this. The CDC has NO authority for this move. What is that called again?
I feel for people who need it but as shared a lot of places the last few days, the money allocated has barely been touched. I don't know if people don't know about the availability of the funds or not.
No Trump even though he started the program. He isn't responsible any more.
He's only "responsible" for roughly 55% of the funding that Congress appropriated last year.
The real question is why aren't landlords knocking down the doors of the appropriate state offices?
You have implied that 'most' tenants don't because they "could be" illegals, but that should not stop the landlords.
In some cases the landlords have refused the money because they don't want the tenants or they want to modify the leases against the program rules.
Crazy side effects of COVID...
Pelosi's attention has been on 'insurrection' and the midterms. Schumer's attention has been on infrastructure and giving Biden a win (which is okay). Biden wants us to believe the pandemic is no longer a crisis as it was under the previous administration.
A moratorium on eviction is not financial assistance; the renters still owe the rent. The relief checks and enhanced unemployment benefits has increased incomes so that people may not qualify for means tested assistance. With all the money the Federal government has dumped into the economy, no one is explaining why these renters can't pay the rent.
The relief packages enacted by Congress really has lifted a lot of people out of poverty. But that has also reduced eligibility for means tested assistance. The money allocated to states may not be distributed simply because fewer people are eligible.
Looks like SCOTUS needs to patiently explain to the Biden Admin, what the law is.
I fail to see how it would be breaking the law if instead of extending it, which the court ruled he couldn't do, a new one is implemented.
That's the point. If you read the decision by SCOTUS, it states that it could only be done by Congress and NOT by the executive branch and especially the CDC. From the article..............
"In June, the Supreme Court confirmed that, by acquiescing to the request, the CDC had "exceeded its existing statutory authority" and was obliged to stop by the end of the month. In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh suggested that the program could continue only in the wake of "clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation)."
Getting into grey areas Imo. Congress did authorize the funds.
I agree that congress people need to get off their asses and do something instead of just complaining.
Where was the outrage when Reagan defied the law and got involved in the Contra Affair?
Where was the outrage over Bush running roughshod over the Constitution?
They normalized it by doing what they wanted, when they wanted and waited til it found its way to SCOTUS or some Congressional Investigation embarrassed them into compliance.
I'm sure there's at least a dozen hair on fire stories about Obama doing similar things.
Right?
Same place the outrage was when Trump and his administration broke the law and republicans didn't care.
Yes you're correct there is.
Just once I would really like to read an article with comments devoid of "whataboutisms".
Such as???????????????????????????????
And if he did I assure you there was PLENTY of outrage.
And see 2.1.6
You never will, that's what politics are always about.
Around here?...
Just for October, and just 1 law for now.
Sixteen Trump administration officials violated the law to boost Trump campaign in October
During the month of October, at least 16 Trump administration officials have violated the Hatch Act a total of more than 60 times, in an unprecedented and escalating assault on the rule of law and the democratic process.
Pretty weak......................how many of them got this?
"What is the penalty for violating the Hatch Act?
Then you should have phrased your question better. You asked for an example, I provide an example of 16 Trump officials violating just 1 law during just 1 month, and that law was violated more than 60 times in that one month.
Who the fuck cares? It is a law, and they violated it over and over and over and over.
Just in case you didn't read the article (and I am assuming you didn't, based on your comment), the subject isn't what other Presidents and Admins. have done.
Please stay on topic.
The subject isn't what other Presidents and Admins. have done.
Please stay on topic.
I don't usually participate in one side masturbation articles without pointing out the faux outrage and ignorance of what other Presidents have done, both GOP and Dems.
So take your smug smart-assed remarks and shove them, you're not the seeder, your requests to stay on topic are wrong and empty as usual.
The seeder did not flag either of my comments,
in fact he voted one up.
We were discussing illegal overreaches by a POTUS.
So try to keep up, participate in the discussion if you have something to say
and stop pretending to be a participation moderator.
We already have enough self appointed micromanagers.
Thanks
and
Fuck off.
And how many thousands of dollars were collected by the Trump Administration?
Zero,
I rest the case.
Biased.
And yet not a single penalty brought forward.
Now that's some serious shit right there............./S
Well, thank you for making an exception in this case??
I never claimed to be the seeder, but I slept in a Holiday Inn last night and read the article and voila!, determined the topic!!!
Try it!
Take your own "fucking" advice!
It is what "Just Jim NC TttH" asked for.
Please read the comment thread before butting in.
Do you want folks to get riled up over events which happened decades ago? To what purpose?
Do either of the two things you mentioned actually have ANYthing at all to do with the Biden Admin. instituting a rule they KNOW will be struck down immediately?
Says the guy that keeps pointing out how it was the Democrats, a century ago, that supported slavery.
So you have nothing but deflection, too!
Not deflecting, just pointing out your flip flopping hypocritical responses.
Now you are simply showing you didn't understand my posts!
And now you are pretending that you don't understand mine.
No, I understood what you wrote.
It was just wrong is all.
Here is what you're up against............................
Lmao!
Watching the Olympic volleyball teams challenge calls that were obvious, in order to get an extra time out, has become the norm.
Biden knows where this is headed.
It's just a time out.
Meanwhile maybe someone can get the individual states to account for where the rent relief money went,
that both Administrations approved.
Meanwhile someone will file suit and it will eventually get to SCOTUS again, maybe before or after Congress gets off it's collective
butt and fixes a few things.
Spent it on other things? Must have been poorly written if they can get away with that.
He's violating his oath of office.
Remember those good ole days of 2020 when Democrats demonized [[deleted for rule] for] violating institutional norms of the Presidency?
Good times.
Remember those good ole days when republicans were pro law enforcement and anti Russia?
Biden keeps doing illegal things and needs to be impeached.
Never going to happen. The Democrats won't even consider it no matter what he does. It won't matter if they are in charge of Congress or not. They will scream "But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!" and obstruct to high heaven.
If the Republicans take control of the House and Senate after mid terms they are not going to give the left the red meat of an impeachment. They will investigate the living hell out of the Biden Administration; and drag him through the media muck. But impeachment will never cross their lips- though it will be implied many times. Not that they would need a legitimate reason to impeach Biden after the precedents the Democrats set with Trump.
But if he keeps doing dopey things like this, the GOP has to get serious about limiting his power. Problem of all this is we would get Kamala....ugh.
Kind of hard to discuss without mentioning Trump. Trump formally declared a national state of emergency for COVID-19 in March, 2020, and invoked Presidential authority under the National Emergencies Act. The President's emergency powers are limited and authority to use some emergency powers requires consent of Congress. Under emergency powers, the President may administer and utilize health agencies as part of the military.
The legal questions are about the extent of Presidential emergency powers. The CDC issued a moratorium on evictions under authority of Presidential emergency powers citing Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act. (People evicted from their residence can't self quarantine.) Some of this relates to Barack Obama's 2009 declaration of a public health emergency for H1N1 influenza (which was also officially recognized as a pandemic). The issues involved are far more complex than the Democrat's bickering would suggest.
The bickering between the White House and the House of Representatives is really about political optics. Biden doesn't want to invoke emergency powers because the political narrative is that Biden has everything under control now; the pandemic is no longer a crisis as it was under Trump. And Pelosi simply fumbled because her attention has been focused on the 'insurrection' and prepping for the midterms. Chuck Schumer is lucky because he can use infrastructure legislation to avoid becoming involved with the Democrats' in-fighting.
Indeed, it has. One example: Louisiana had $550M to spend. To date, it's only had requests totaling $50M. Senator John Kennedy explains:
It is ridiculous that he flouts the Supreme Court like Andrew Jackson once did. The disregard for the rule of law here is almost unprecedented. Do it because by the time the courts can address it it will have done what he wanted anyway.