Supreme Court [LIVE] hears case on Biden's student debt relief plan. *Audio only*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5-7fHvcMhE

The gov mandating breaking a legal contract.
Sounds like communism to me.

The standing question that the Dems are focused on is a distraction. The real issue is breach of implied and actual contract.

BIDEN DOES NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY

the standing issue is the only way liberals have ANY chance of winning this, so of course they are going to focus on that.

IMO congress should pass a law that states that ANY citizen has standing to sue when they think the government is exceeding its authority.

I don’t care if it opens up 100000000000 law suits! When the government or the president over steps their authority it affects us all and every citizen should have standing to sue!

I’m listening to this right now. The Justices are attacking the arguments of the prosecuting attorney saying the student relief act is not legal. This is NOT good.

Thank you for referencing that article know.your.why.

"Supreme Court [LIVE] hears case on Biden's student debt relief plan. *Audio only*"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

The main reason that this case is being heard by the Supreme Court is because parents aren't making sure that their children are being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as the drafters of the Constitution had intended for those powers to be understood.

From related thread...

Regarding student loans the drafters of the Constitution had considered giving banking powers to Congress, but had decided not to.

"Docr. FRANKLIN moved to add after the words "post roads" Art I. Sect. 8. "a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary [emphasis added]"" —Madison Debates, September 14, 1787.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads [, a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary];"
"Mr. KING. The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it. In Philada. & New York, It will be referred to the establishment of a Bank, which has been a subject of contention in those Cities. In other places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies." —Madison Debates, September 14, 1787.
"It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added]. — Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791

In other words, so-called federal loans to anyone is effectively unconstitutionally altering Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 power to raise revenues as follows.

"Article I, Section 7, Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue [, including interest on unconstitutional federal loans,] shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

But most importantly, President Thomas Jefferson, in a State of the Union address, had envisioned that the states would give Congress the constitutionally enumerated power to appropriate taxes for paying for schooling for farmers' children for example, something that the states have never done!

The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806." (Jefferson is indicating that Congress cannot tax and spend in the name of intrastate infrastructure imo.)

Justice Joseph Story had likewise indicated that the states would need to appropriately amend the Constitution in order for the big, bad feds could dictate, regulate, tax and spend for intrastate schooling purposes, again, something that the states have never done.

"The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states [emphases added]." —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2, 1833.

Patriots, the bottom line is this imo. What is your threshold of “pain” for peacefully stopping unconstitutionally big state and federal governments controlled by bully, constitutionally undefined political parties, from oppressing the people under their boots?

The inevitable remedy for ongoing, post-17A ratification, corrupt political party treason (imo)...

All MAGA patriots need to wake up their RINO federal and state lawmakers by making the following clear to them.

If they don’t publicly support either a resolution, or a Constitutional Convention, to effectively "secede" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by amending the Constitution to repeal the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A), doing so before the primary elections in 2024, that YOU will primary them.

If the proposed amendment was limited strictly to repealing 16&17A, relatively little or ideally no discussion would be needed before ratification of the amendment imo.

With 16&17A out of the way, my hope is that Trump 47 becomes the FIRST president of a truly constitutionally limited power federal government.

In the meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for significant MAGA legislation to appear in the first 100 days of new term for what may still prove to be another RINO-controlled House.

Trump will hopefully do another round of primarying RINOs for 2024 elections.

Here is the rumble version for those of you that don’t want to give YouTube traffic and ad revenue

LIVE: Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Student Loan Forgiveness - 2/28/23
https://rumble.com/v2b9pdo-live-supreme-court-oral-arguments-on-student-loan-forgiveness-22823.html

Listening to some statements from the judge’s. They appear against money going to a preferred group of people.
Replace students with blacks and there goes the court against reparations.

Unfortunately this is not a video coverage. Not sure why cameras are not allowed with this.

Because the SCOTUS has never allowed live video coverage of oral arguments.

I am not a lawyer, but I would not be to concerned about the Justices pressing the plaintiffs. They brought this case, they have to prove they have grounds for their complaint. Hence I would assume the burden is with them. We will not know the decision for three or four months, so don’t try to draw any conclusions from what you hear now. Professional court watchers get burned annually trying to predict what will happen. One thing I believe we do know, there is a reason Biden refuses to declare the COVID emergency over. He uses it for government overreach.