How do you come to the conclusion that it was only meant to protect members of the military reserves? It doesn’t say anything even remotely like that.
Sure, that’s one of the things that is meant to do, but nowhere does it say that it is exclusive to that. In fact, what you quoted specifically flies in the face of your claim.
As well does section C
Which isn’t relevant to student debt relief, but is relevant to pointing out that your argument is not based on the actual text of the bill, but only what you wish it said.
Well at least you have abandoned the silly idea that your made up requirement for people to prove eligibility is somehow legally binding.
Now you’ve moved on to the equally silly idea that if you ignore some parts of the law it says something different than the actual law, but still progress of a sort.
None of the court cases, including the one you cited, have anything to do with your invented notion of the true meaning of the law in question intended only to help the military. That’s not a real thing that has anything to do with this.
Section 1, (b), (4)
(4) Hundreds of thousands of Army, Air Force, Marine
Corps, Navy, and Coast Guard reservists and members of the
National Guard have been called to active duty or active service.
You’re flagrantly wrong. In the subsection that specifies the scope of the Act, Section 1 (b), the only non-military/defense clause is (2).
(2) The United States will protect the freedom and secure
the safety of its citizens.
The idea that the 2003 HEROES act was meant to protect freedom and safety of people who couldn’t pay off their student debt loans is ludicrous at Brobdingnaging levels.
The Section C of he 2003 HEROES Act you refer to was meant to allow additional support to people affected by the 2001 NYC attacks. Again, it had no intention of a blanket cancellation of student debt and it’s dishonest of the Biden administration to try to use the act to support such an action.
You keep saying that, but you then make arguments based on what you wish were the case, rather than reality. I don’t think you understand either what the law says, or what the word “wrong” means, because you are using one or the other with complete disregard to the facts.
That doesn’t say anything about the “scope” of the act. Please point to where it says so.
Or point to anywhere in the bill that says that it is exclusively for members of the armed services. Hint: it doesn’t.
Fortunately, no one has made this claim.
Does it say that? No, what it says is people affected by a national disaster or emergency. Cite where it limits it to the 2001 NYC attacks or admit that you are, as you would most eloquently say, “flagrantly wrong”.
I mean, the act itself is about cancellation of student debt, so claiming that it’s not is once again you telling us what you wish it would say, rather than going by what it actually does say.
Why? The text is plain that it can be used exactly in this way.
Now, there is a lot in there about the military, as military personnel have many ways their lives can be disrupted and find themselves unable to pay student loans.
Private citizens have fewer ways that their lives can be so disrupted, but so those are also spelled out in the bill. I don’t understand why you insist on ignoring the plain text of the bill and inserting your own fantasy interpretations on it.
From your own quote. The law specifies “direct economic hardship” that is a “direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency.” The simple language of the law limits it to people who’ve suffered direct hardship from the national emergency. Providing student debt cancellation to people who weren’t directly harmed by the Covid national emergency is outside of the scope of the law, even if you ignore it’s original intentions. Biden’s giveaway isn’t based on hardship. It’s based on whether people have student debt they’d like the government to pay for them.
There aren’t many who were not directly economically harmed by the COVID national emergency in one way or another. Its original intentions were to provide economic relief to people who suffered an economic hardship due to a national emergency. That’s exactly how it is being used.
No, that’s not what it’s based on. That’s what you made up and are insisting is true, no matter how much evidence to the contrary exists even in your own cites.
Great we’ve moved on from the silly intent of the law argument you pulled out of a hat earlier today. Lot’s of extremely mobile goalposts in these parts. Pretty much a Gish gallop at this point.
Feel free to keep manufacturing arguments based on the way you think things should be, I’ll jump back in if you luck into a relevant one.
Since you’ve resorted to fisking, I’m going to mostly ignore your post. I’ll just note that the 2003 HEROES Act is Biden’s legal justification for cancelling student debt. So while I view that justification as preposterous, it is indeed being made. Also, if you read the 2003 HEROES Act, section 1(b) clearly indicates who the act should apply to. As to the plain text of the bill, have you actually read it? The vast majority of the bill applies to the military. A small portion applies to national disasters, and since it was written in the aftermath of the 2001 NYC attacks, obviously points to that disaster.
Biden is using that law to try to implement an executive action favourable to the Democratic Party. His action should be subject to judicial review, and fortunately is being reviewed.
You make a lot of false and wrong claims that need to be refuted individually. That’s on you, not on me.
Yes, and that was all addressed in what you have stated that you will be ignoring. You have done nothing to substantiate any of your points, and have claimed things in the act that don’t actually exist. Now you give up, and claim that it’s my fault that you won’t or can’t defend your argument.
You are “flagrantly wrong” about every claim you have made in this thread.
As I have proven to anyone reading that your claims are false and your logic fallacious, I will no longer participate in this conversation with you, good day.
(Not saying that I won’t jump in and point out in all the ways that you are wrong if you continue to insist on things that are at odds with reality, but it will be as a matter of pointing out the very many ways in how you are wrong to anyone reading, not an actual engagement with you.)
How is a law that specifies the recipients of student debt cancellation have a) suffered direct economic hardship and b) have suffered that hardship as a “direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency” being applied legally as a blanket provision? You’re making comments against me, but you’re not offering counter-arguments, providing cites, or doing anything to explain the legal problem that you brought up. Ignoring the intention of the 2003 HEROES Act, and specifically focusing on the definition of an Affected Individual, please explain how student debt relief can be granted to individuals who have not “suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result” of the Covid national emergency?
Also, if you’re interested in answering questions, why is an issue that existed for several years before Covid having a solution proposed because of Covid, and being done so after the emergency has passed? If someone had student debt problems in 2019 because they made stupid decisions, why are they being offered debt cancellation three years later when the emergency is over? Do you believe there should be judicial oversight of executive actions to ensure they comply with the law?
This isn’t what Biden is trying to do so it’s the wrong question. It’s not up to you to decide who suffered direct economic hardship as a result of the pandemic and none of the current lawsuits appear to be challenging that so it’s not really relevant to the discussion.
And your other questions don’t make sense. They didn’t provide relief to people in 2019 because because they hadn’t yet suffered direct economic hardship as a result of the pandemic. They are providing relief now because people have suffered direct economic hardship as a result of the pandemic. People who suffered direct economic hardship as a result of the pandemic will still have suffered direct economic hardship as a result of the pandemic in three years, ten years, or one hundred years. Time is not a magical eraser. Things that happened happened. The passage of time doesn’t make them unhappen.
So you haven’t explained how the 2003 HEROES Act justifies a blanket cancellation of student debt. You’re ignoring that the clear purpose of the act was to protect military reservists. You haven’t addressed the issue that Biden’s executive order was stretching the purview of the act far beyond what was intended. But you’ve quibbled on the definition of scope.
And I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked Lance_Turbo. How is a law that specifies “direct economic hardship” that is a “direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency" rightfully being used for blanket relief of student debt cancellation?
For this and some other of your posts in this thread, I am directing you to drop this narrow focus on only whether there is a basis with President Biden’s interpretation of the HEROES act to cancel some student debt.
In reviewing the OP, it appears they wished to have a discussion about whether or not cancellation of student debt is a good policy in general, not to determine whether the mechanism used is the appropriate one. If you wish to have that discussion, by all means, do so. But not any longer in this thread.
It’s not up to me, but it is up to the judiciary. The question is whether Biden’s executive order exceeded the legal authority provided to him from the HEROES Acton of 2003. My view is that his order exceeded that act. I object to Biden’s executive order for a number of reasons, but I’m happy for the courts to decide on its legality. Are you?
On one of your other points, I disagree that someone who has suffered a hardship needs emergency assistance three years later. But you’re also missing the point. If a person would have liked to receive student debt relief in 2019, and would also like to receive student debt relief in 2022, what is the difference? Is it just Covid happened? Is there a presumption that since Covid happened, everyone has suffered direct economic hardship? Suppose a college graduate with large student debts had a job in a grocery store in 2019. This hypothetical person never caught the Covid disease and was employed throughout the Covid crisis and has the same job today. Would such a person have suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of the Covid national emergency? If not, why should they receive student debt cancellation under the HEROES act?