In the modern United States, quo warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff's claim (and thus a "cause of action" instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires) those authorized by statute or by the corporation's charter.
In New York State, the former writ of quo warranto has been codified. Per Executive Law § 63-b, only the Attorney General, at his or her discretion, "may maintain an action, upon his own information or upon the complaint of a private person, against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises within the state a franchise or a public office, civil or military, or an office in a domestic corporation."[20]
It’s why I keep asking, why are we celebrating wins through Congress and SCOTUS? These criminals DGAF! If we have no one to enforce the laws, then what can we do? And it’s extremely weak for the most armed citizens of the world, for this to be happening to. Just wait till the election. Watch that clusterF. If nothing gets done other than “strong words”. We haven’t seen how far these thugs will go yet. We need help here in America. And the people need to start saying that out loud. I guess we haven’t been pushed far enough into the corner yet. Wait till pictures of dead American soldiers start coming back. Think that’ll work? Honestly, I doubt it. We need some real leadership like TODAY!
Because those wins bring greater awareness. If you cant see the tide turning its because you dont want to. When the timing is right things will move quick.
Concerning the first part he’s simply calling up reserve troops to participate in “operation Atlantic resolve” which has been ongoing since I believe 2014ish and well within his rights as laid out in the law which I’ve linked below.
I don’t think he’s even adding more people, just bringing up reserves to make up for everyone leaving the military because of all the bs.
I understand they’ve used that code to “pull up reserves” ever since Bush used it send troops to Iraq.
It’s clearly been used to avoid Congress declaring war since Iraqi freedom. My issue is that Biden and every talking head politician has no issue calling it the War in Ukraine.
If it’s a war with NATO involvement, Congress should be authorizing what is sent where. Congress authorized weapons being sent for the War in Ukraine, after all. But we’re just going to ignore that when it comes to troops.
Hope they don't try calling up my 60 yr old husband or our NG son. My husband will probably tell them where they can stuff it, our son doesn't think they will send him to Europe because they already have him & his unit going to the Texas border in a few months for a year. Husband said if they have to activate him, then we (our Country) is in deep shit.
They issued a majority opinion stating the DOE and the Executive Branch cannot do anything to erase student debt that doesn’t get passed by Congress first.
It wasn’t this exact move to cancel student loans, but they did say that the EB cannot just wave a magic wand (issue an EO) without Congressional approval.
And the argument in this new version of student loan forgiveness is that the executive has congressional approval via the Higher Education Act of 1965. This forgiveness plan is narrower in scope than the previous one which was shot down by SCOTUS.
Like it or not, this move is not Biden brazenly violating SCOTUS's rulings. He's done that in the past (eviction moratorium extension), but we don't need to spread misinformation that he's doing it now, too.
I’m sorry, but what? Biden v. Nebraska was also about the HEA of 1965.
From the SCOTUS opinion on Biden v. Nebraska:
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Education Act) governs federal financial aid mechanisms, including student loans. 20 U. S. C. §1070(a). The Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to cancel or reduce loans in certain limited circumstances.
The Secretary may cancel a set amount of loans held by some public servants, see §§1078–10, 1087j, 1087ee.
He may also forgive the loans of borrowers who have died or become “permanently and totally disabled,” §1087(a)(1); borrowers who are bankrupt, §1087(b); and borrowers whose schools falsely certify them, close down, or fail to pay lenders. §1087(c).
That doesn’t apply to any of these 804k people.
The Biden v. Nebraska opinion also says, while the DOE Secretary has the ability to modify provisions of the HEA of 1965, sweeping forgiveness measures are outside of the legal scope of the definition of “modify” granted by Congress.
Roberts also argued that the HEROES Act authorized the secretary of education to waive or modify student loan provisions but did not authorize the cancellation of student debt:[9]
The Secretary’s comprehensive debt cancellation plan cannot fairly be called a waiver—it not only nullifies existing provisions, but augments and expands them dramatically. It cannot be mere modification, because it constitutes ‘effectively the introduction of a whole new regime.’ MCI, 512 U. S., at 234. And it cannot be some combination of the two, because when the Secretary seeks to add to existing law, the fact that he has ‘waived’ certain provisions does not give him a free pass to avoid the limits inherent in the power to ‘modify.’ However broad the meaning of ‘waive or modify,’ that language cannot authorize the kind of exhaustive rewriting of the statute that has taken place here.
It doesn’t matter that the scope is smaller. It matters that the DOE does not have the authority.
Impeach and remove the criminal
At least MTG is doing the right thing.
He's not lawfully elected as President. How do you impeach someone who isn't president?
Quo Warranto
From the wikipedia:
United States
In the modern United States, quo warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff's claim (and thus a "cause of action" instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires) those authorized by statute or by the corporation's charter.
In New York State, the former writ of quo warranto has been codified. Per Executive Law § 63-b, only the Attorney General, at his or her discretion, "may maintain an action, upon his own information or upon the complaint of a private person, against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises within the state a franchise or a public office, civil or military, or an office in a domestic corporation."[20]
💯
It must be clean, it must be done by the law
Because he’s not CIC
This. Let's hope there is enough of our real military left to refuse to follow his orders. I guess we'll see.
He needs to be removed!
It’s why I keep asking, why are we celebrating wins through Congress and SCOTUS? These criminals DGAF! If we have no one to enforce the laws, then what can we do? And it’s extremely weak for the most armed citizens of the world, for this to be happening to. Just wait till the election. Watch that clusterF. If nothing gets done other than “strong words”. We haven’t seen how far these thugs will go yet. We need help here in America. And the people need to start saying that out loud. I guess we haven’t been pushed far enough into the corner yet. Wait till pictures of dead American soldiers start coming back. Think that’ll work? Honestly, I doubt it. We need some real leadership like TODAY!
Because those wins bring greater awareness. If you cant see the tide turning its because you dont want to. When the timing is right things will move quick.
Concerning the first part he’s simply calling up reserve troops to participate in “operation Atlantic resolve” which has been ongoing since I believe 2014ish and well within his rights as laid out in the law which I’ve linked below.
I don’t think he’s even adding more people, just bringing up reserves to make up for everyone leaving the military because of all the bs.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12304
I understand they’ve used that code to “pull up reserves” ever since Bush used it send troops to Iraq.
It’s clearly been used to avoid Congress declaring war since Iraqi freedom. My issue is that Biden and every talking head politician has no issue calling it the War in Ukraine.
If it’s a war with NATO involvement, Congress should be authorizing what is sent where. Congress authorized weapons being sent for the War in Ukraine, after all. But we’re just going to ignore that when it comes to troops.
Any military member that identifies as the gender on their birth certificate should not be "allowed" to represent the United States in ukraine.
Sooo Republicans will impeach him when? lol. Two more weeks?
Hope they don't try calling up my 60 yr old husband or our NG son. My husband will probably tell them where they can stuff it, our son doesn't think they will send him to Europe because they already have him & his unit going to the Texas border in a few months for a year. Husband said if they have to activate him, then we (our Country) is in deep shit.
What else is new.
Did the Supreme Court vote against this?
They issued a majority opinion stating the DOE and the Executive Branch cannot do anything to erase student debt that doesn’t get passed by Congress first.
It wasn’t this exact move to cancel student loans, but they did say that the EB cannot just wave a magic wand (issue an EO) without Congressional approval.
And the argument in this new version of student loan forgiveness is that the executive has congressional approval via the Higher Education Act of 1965. This forgiveness plan is narrower in scope than the previous one which was shot down by SCOTUS.
Like it or not, this move is not Biden brazenly violating SCOTUS's rulings. He's done that in the past (eviction moratorium extension), but we don't need to spread misinformation that he's doing it now, too.
I’m sorry, but what? Biden v. Nebraska was also about the HEA of 1965.
From the SCOTUS opinion on Biden v. Nebraska:
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Education Act) governs federal financial aid mechanisms, including student loans. 20 U. S. C. §1070(a). The Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to cancel or reduce loans in certain limited circumstances.
That doesn’t apply to any of these 804k people.
The Biden v. Nebraska opinion also says, while the DOE Secretary has the ability to modify provisions of the HEA of 1965, sweeping forgiveness measures are outside of the legal scope of the definition of “modify” granted by Congress.
It doesn’t matter that the scope is smaller. It matters that the DOE does not have the authority.
I'm sure they will in twenty years or so.