The Constitutionality of CDC's Eviction Moratorium

[Glitch]

The CDC's order to temporary halt residential evictions originates from Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136 (a.k.a. CARES Act of 2020), and has been extended numerous times since the law was enacted. The current order is set to expire on June 30, 2021.

Under Section 4024 of the CARES Act Congress is assuming they have complete control over every residence that as a federally-backed mortgage loan, as well as any residence involved in federal programs. Such as Section 41441(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and Section 542 of the Housing Act of 1949.

Just to be crystal clear, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the CDC. They are merely the federal agency responsible for implementing the law enacted by Congress. This thread is about the constitutionality of the Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136.

Unfortunately, Congress is not required to cite the portion of the US Constitution that gives them the authority to enact such laws, so we are left trying to guess the authority they used. Every law Congress enacts must be a power that the US Constitution has specifically granted to the federal government. So the question becomes, under which authority of the US Constitution did Congress enact this law?

Based upon the definitions under Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136 it would appear that Congress was attempting to draw a nexus between federal programs and their ability to assert control over the properties. The only properties covered under this law are those that:

(A) participates in—

(i) a covered housing program (as defined in section 41411(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12491(a))); or​

(ii) the rural housing voucher program under section 542 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490r);​

(B) has a—

(i) Federally backed mortgage loan; or​

(ii) Federally backed multifamily mortgage loan.​

Federally-backed mortgages does make the property federal property to do with as they see fit. Nor does participating in any federally-covered housing program put the property under federal control. Furthermore, there is no nexus with the Commerce Clause since Congress' authority only extends to interstate and international commerce. So unless it is a mobile home that has crossed a State or national border, Congress has no authority over any private property within any State except for what the Fifth Amendment allows.

If the law is determined to be unconstitutional the CDC order will cease to exist, and every resident who benefited from this illegal temporary eviction moratorium order will lose a lot more than just their homes. They will be held financially accountable to the leaseholder for every penny, plus interest, that they didn't pay.

Earlier in May the DC District Court struct down the CDC mortgage moratorium.

Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC Moratorium On Evictions

A federal judge in Washington D.C. struck down a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy that halted landlords from evicting tenants.

thefederalist.com

However, the DOJ appealed the decision and the CDC mortgage moratorium was reinstated until the end of June.

Temporary Stay Leaves CDC Eviction Moratorium in Effect after Judge Rules it Unconstitutional

A federal district court judge in Washington, DC, ruled on May 5 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have the authority to issue a federal moratorium on evictions for nonpayment of rent. Within hours of the decision, the U.S.

nlihc.org

 

[VySky]

^^^ One of the finest OP’s I’ve read on DP ^^^

 

[tshade]

The CDC's order to temporary halt residential evictions originates from Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136 (a.k.a. CARES Act of 2020), and has been extended numerous times since the law was enacted. The current order is set to expire on June 30, 2021.

Under Section 4024 of the CARES Act Congress is assuming they have complete control over every residence that as a federally-backed mortgage loan, as well as any residence involved in federal programs. Such as Section 41441(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and Section 542 of the Housing Act of 1949.

Just to be crystal clear, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the CDC. They are merely the federal agency responsible for implementing the law enacted by Congress. This thread is about the constitutionality of the Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136.

Unfortunately, Congress is not required to cite the portion of the US Constitution that gives them the authority to enact such laws, so we are left trying to guess the authority they used. Every law Congress enacts must be a power that the US Constitution has specifically granted to the federal government. So the question becomes, under which authority of the US Constitution did Congress enact this law?

Based upon the definitions under Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136 it would appear that Congress was attempting to draw a nexus between federal programs and their ability to assert control over the properties. The only properties covered under this law are those that:


Federally-backed mortgages does make the property federal property to do with as they see fit. Nor does participating in any federally-covered housing program put the property under federal control. Furthermore, there is no nexus with the Commerce Clause since Congress' authority only extends to interstate and international commerce. So unless it is a mobile home that has crossed a State or national border, Congress has no authority over any private property within any State except for what the Fifth Amendment allows.

If the law is determined to be unconstitutional the CDC order will cease to exist, and every resident who benefited from this illegal temporary eviction moratorium order will lose a lot more than just their homes. They will be held financially accountable to the leaseholder for every penny, plus interest, that they didn't pay.

Earlier in May the DC District Court struct down the CDC mortgage moratorium.

Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC Moratorium On Evictions

A federal judge in Washington D.C. struck down a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy that halted landlords from evicting tenants.

thefederalist.com

However, the DOJ appealed the decision and the CDC mortgage moratorium was reinstated until the end of June.

Temporary Stay Leaves CDC Eviction Moratorium in Effect after Judge Rules it Unconstitutional

A federal district court judge in Washington, DC, ruled on May 5 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have the authority to issue a federal moratorium on evictions for nonpayment of rent. Within hours of the decision, the U.S.

nlihc.org

The price we pay for the electing of Trump. He screwed the economy that Biden inherits.....

 

[Chomsky]

The CDC's order to temporary halt residential evictions originates from Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136 (a.k.a. CARES Act of 2020), and has been extended numerous times since the law was enacted. The current order is set to expire on June 30, 2021.

Under Section 4024 of the CARES Act Congress is assuming they have complete control over every residence that as a federally-backed mortgage loan, as well as any residence involved in federal programs. Such as Section 41441(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and Section 542 of the Housing Act of 1949.

Just to be crystal clear, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the CDC. They are merely the federal agency responsible for implementing the law enacted by Congress. This thread is about the constitutionality of the Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136.

Unfortunately, Congress is not required to cite the portion of the US Constitution that gives them the authority to enact such laws, so we are left trying to guess the authority they used. Every law Congress enacts must be a power that the US Constitution has specifically granted to the federal government. So the question becomes, under which authority of the US Constitution did Congress enact this law?

Based upon the definitions under Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136 it would appear that Congress was attempting to draw a nexus between federal programs and their ability to assert control over the properties. The only properties covered under this law are those that:


Federally-backed mortgages does make the property federal property to do with as they see fit. Nor does participating in any federally-covered housing program put the property under federal control. Furthermore, there is no nexus with the Commerce Clause since Congress' authority only extends to interstate and international commerce. So unless it is a mobile home that has crossed a State or national border, Congress has no authority over any private property within any State except for what the Fifth Amendment allows.

If the law is determined to be unconstitutional the CDC order will cease to exist, and every resident who benefited from this illegal temporary eviction moratorium order will lose a lot more than just their homes. They will be held financially accountable to the leaseholder for every penny, plus interest, that they didn't pay.

Earlier in May the DC District Court struct down the CDC mortgage moratorium.

Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC Moratorium On Evictions

A federal judge in Washington D.C. struck down a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy that halted landlords from evicting tenants.

thefederalist.com

However, the DOJ appealed the decision and the CDC mortgage moratorium was reinstated until the end of June.

Temporary Stay Leaves CDC Eviction Moratorium in Effect after Judge Rules it Unconstitutional

A federal district court judge in Washington, DC, ruled on May 5 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have the authority to issue a federal moratorium on evictions for nonpayment of rent. Within hours of the decision, the U.S.

nlihc.org

Great post, Glitch. I'm not fully sure it was Constitutional, though the federal government does have quite a bit of leeway in emergency & war time.

But regardless, the landlords should have been immediately re-imbursed for the rent skipping tenets. They have notes to pay, too!

 

[Rich2018]

The price we pay for the electing of Trump. He screwed the economy that Biden inherits.....

But uncle Joe is slowly unscrewing it...

 

[Phys251]

The CDC's order to temporary halt residential evictions originates from Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136 (a.k.a. CARES Act of 2020), and has been extended numerous times since the law was enacted. The current order is set to expire on June 30, 2021.

Under Section 4024 of the CARES Act Congress is assuming they have complete control over every residence that as a federally-backed mortgage loan, as well as any residence involved in federal programs. Such as Section 41441(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and Section 542 of the Housing Act of 1949.

Just to be crystal clear, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the CDC. They are merely the federal agency responsible for implementing the law enacted by Congress. This thread is about the constitutionality of the Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136.

Unfortunately, Congress is not required to cite the portion of the US Constitution that gives them the authority to enact such laws, so we are left trying to guess the authority they used. Every law Congress enacts must be a power that the US Constitution has specifically granted to the federal government. So the question becomes, under which authority of the US Constitution did Congress enact this law?

Based upon the definitions under Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136 it would appear that Congress was attempting to draw a nexus between federal programs and their ability to assert control over the properties. The only properties covered under this law are those that:


Federally-backed mortgages does make the property federal property to do with as they see fit. Nor does participating in any federally-covered housing program put the property under federal control. Furthermore, there is no nexus with the Commerce Clause since Congress' authority only extends to interstate and international commerce. So unless it is a mobile home that has crossed a State or national border, Congress has no authority over any private property within any State except for what the Fifth Amendment allows.

If the law is determined to be unconstitutional the CDC order will cease to exist, and every resident who benefited from this illegal temporary eviction moratorium order will lose a lot more than just their homes. They will be held financially accountable to the leaseholder for every penny, plus interest, that they didn't pay.

Earlier in May the DC District Court struct down the CDC mortgage moratorium.

Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC Moratorium On Evictions

A federal judge in Washington D.C. struck down a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy that halted landlords from evicting tenants.

thefederalist.com

However, the DOJ appealed the decision and the CDC mortgage moratorium was reinstated until the end of June.

Temporary Stay Leaves CDC Eviction Moratorium in Effect after Judge Rules it Unconstitutional

A federal district court judge in Washington, DC, ruled on May 5 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have the authority to issue a federal moratorium on evictions for nonpayment of rent. Within hours of the decision, the U.S.

nlihc.org

Just admit it, Glitch. You want more people thrown out on the streets. How Christian of you.

 

[tshade]

But uncle Joe is slowly unscrewing it...

well, yes------it will take time to undo the damage, however.....

 

[swing_voter]

In times of emergency the government has broad powers.

Bring a case before trump's Supreme Court, let's see what they say.

Was the emergency dire enough? Well, over 600,000 people died. That's Civil War numbers.

In meeting the emergency, did the government overstep its bounds? I doubt it.


They put Hawaii under martial law during WWII. You could be put in jail without a trial. You could be arrested for being out after curfew, all perfectly legal.


.

 

[Glitch]

The price we pay for the electing of Trump. He screwed the economy that Biden inherits.....

Actually, it was the price we paid by electing a Democrat majority in Congress, since it was they who enacted the unconstitutional law, not a President. Or do you not comprehend how laws are enacted?

 

[Glitch]

Great post, Glitch. I'm not fully sure it was Constitutional, though the federal government does have quite a bit of leeway in emergency & war time.

But regardless, the landlords should have been immediately re-imbursed for the rent skipping tenets. They have notes to pay, too!

They do indeed have quite a bit of leeway in times of declared emergencies or wars, however, they are still bound by the US Constitution. As the Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

While a local regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police power of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, the mode or manner of exercising its police power is wholly within the discretion of the State so long as the Constitution of the United States is not contravened, or any right granted or secured thereby is not infringed, or not exercised in such an arbitrary and oppressive manner as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to reimburse anyone. It could be argued that the States might have the constitutional authority to exert a temporary moratorium on evictions under the Tenth Amendment, but it is certain that Congress was never granted that authority since there is nothing in the US Constitution that could be construed to give them that power.

 

[Glitch]

Just admit it, Glitch. You want more people thrown out on the streets. How Christian of you.

I want the government to abide by the Supreme Law of the Land at all times. Why am I not surprised that you don't?

 

[Glitch]

In times of emergency the government has broad powers.

Bring a case before trump's Supreme Court, let's see what they say.

Was the emergency dire enough? Well, over 600,000 people died. That's Civil War numbers.

In meeting the emergency, did the government overstep its bounds? I doubt it.


They put Hawaii under martial law during WWII. You could be put in jail without a trial. You could be arrested for being out after curfew, all perfectly legal.


.

Those emergency powers cannot supersede or circumvent the US Constitution, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held. Section 4024 of CARES Act of 2020 violates the US Constitution.

 

[Phys251]

I want the government to abide by the Supreme Law of the Land at all times. Why am I not surprised that you don't?

So I was right? You want more people thrown out on the streets? Jesus must be so proud of you.

 

[Rich2018]

well, yes------it will take time to undo the damage, however.....

Some damage will take a generation or more to indo and fix.

 

[swing_voter]

Those emergency powers cannot supersede or circumvent the US Constitution, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held. Section 4024 of CARES Act of 2020 violates the US Constitution.

During the martial lockdown of Hawaii, people were imprisoned without trial and locked up if they were out after curfew.

How does that not circumvent the Constitution?


Eisenhower used his executive powers to created the interstate freeway system, bypassing congress all together. How is that not a violation of the Constitution?


Lincoln arrested spies and put them in jail without a trial. Isn't that a violation of the Constitution?


.

 

[tshade]

Actually, it was the price we paid by electing a Democrat majority in Congress, since it was they who enacted the unconstitutional law, not a President. Or do you not comprehend how laws are enacted?

What law, pray tell, was "unconstitutional ???? I challenge you to name a law they passed that is unconstitutional. I win one this one almost certainly....

 

[Glitch]

During the martial lockdown of Hawaii, people were imprisoned without trial and locked up if they were out after curfew.

How does that not circumvent the Constitution?

That is what happens when you allow government to ignore the US Constitution, particularly when you have fascist leftist filth, like FDR, in charge. That is precisely the kind of fascist government you, Phys251, and the rest of your leftist ilk desire.

Eisenhower used his executive powers to created the interstate freeway system, bypassing congress all together. How is that not a violation of the Constitution?

Actually, the National Highway System was created in 1995 by a GOP-controlled Congress (Public Law 104-59). The National Highway System includes the Interstate Highway System that was created by a Democrat-controlled Congress in 1956 (Public Law 84-627). Both were justified by Congress as a necessary component to the national defense of the US.

You clearly are not very well informed since you seem to think Presidents can enact laws without Congress.

Lincoln arrested spies and put them in jail without a trial. Isn't that a violation of the Constitution?

If you had even a remote clue, which clearly you do not, you would know the US Constitution allows the President to suspend Habeas Corpus during times of rebellion or invasion. Once again you are mistaken, it was not a violation of the US Constitution.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

 

[Glitch]

What law, pray tell, was "unconstitutional ???? I challenge you to name a law they passed that is unconstitutional. I win one this one almost certainly....

Are you not able to read? I only mentioned the unconstitutional law three times in the OP. Here it is again:

Public Law 116-136 (a.k.a. CARES Act of 2020). Specifically, Section 4024 under that law violates the US Constitution. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to prevent evictions, even temporarily.

 

[Rich2018]

I want the government to abide by the Supreme Law of the Land at all times. Why am I not surprised that you don't?

The Constitution is not the sole supreme law of the land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

 

[tshade]

Are you not able to read? I only mentioned the unconstitutional law three times in the OP. Here it is again:

Public Law 116-136 (a.k.a. CARES Act of 2020). Specifically, Section 4024 under that law violates the US Constitution. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to prevent evictions, even temporarily.

That's nice. Now, what court declared this unconstitutional???? Oh, that's right ----NONE. Are you unable to read?? Or perhaps you are seeing things that aren't there. I win on pure fact. When it is declare unconstitutional, then we can start over again. Me = 1 point You = 0. Next topic?

 

[Glitch]

That's nice. Now, what court declared this unconstitutional???? Oh, that's right ----NONE. Are you unable to read?? Or perhaps you are seeing things that aren't there. I win on pure fact. When it is declare unconstitutional, then we can start over again. Me = 1 point You = 0. Next topic?

You didn't ask that question before, and I already answered that question in the OP which you obviously never read.

The question for the Court is a narrow one: Does the Public Health Service Act grant the CDC the legal authority to impose a nationwide eviction moratorium? It does not.

D.C. District Judge Dabney Friedrich

Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC Moratorium On Evictions

A federal judge in Washington D.C. struck down a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy that halted landlords from evicting tenants.

thefederalist.com

Furthermore another federal judge in Ohio held in March that neither Congress nor the Executive Branch possesses the authority to ban evictions nationwide.

Federal judge in Ohio rules CDC exceeded authority with eviction ban

A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that the government overstepped its authority when it banned evictions across the country.

www.cnbc.com

You truly are utterly clueless, that much is very obvious.

 

[tshade]

You didn't ask that question before, and I already answered that question in the OP which you obviously never read.


D.C. District Judge Dabney Friedrich

Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC Moratorium On Evictions

A federal judge in Washington D.C. struck down a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy that halted landlords from evicting tenants.

thefederalist.com

Furthermore another federal judge in Ohio held in March that neither Congress nor the Executive Branch possesses the authority to ban evictions nationwide.

Federal judge in Ohio rules CDC exceeded authority with eviction ban

A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that the government overstepped its authority when it banned evictions across the country.

www.cnbc.com

You truly are utterly clueless, that much is very obvious.

I stand corrected-----------you win !~

 

[tshade]

You didn't ask that question before, and I already answered that question in the OP which you obviously never read.


D.C. District Judge Dabney Friedrich

Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC Moratorium On Evictions

A federal judge in Washington D.C. struck down a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy that halted landlords from evicting tenants.

thefederalist.com

Furthermore another federal judge in Ohio held in March that neither Congress nor the Executive Branch possesses the authority to ban evictions nationwide.

Federal judge in Ohio rules CDC exceeded authority with eviction ban

A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that the government overstepped its authority when it banned evictions across the country.

www.cnbc.com

You truly are utterly clueless, that much is very obvious.

It remains Constitutional until the Supreme Court says otherwise. Correction: I win. You lose.

 

[nvflash]

The CDC's order to temporary halt residential evictions originates from Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136 (a.k.a. CARES Act of 2020), and has been extended numerous times since the law was enacted. The current order is set to expire on June 30, 2021.

Under Section 4024 of the CARES Act Congress is assuming they have complete control over every residence that as a federally-backed mortgage loan, as well as any residence involved in federal programs. Such as Section 41441(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and Section 542 of the Housing Act of 1949.

Just to be crystal clear, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the CDC. They are merely the federal agency responsible for implementing the law enacted by Congress. This thread is about the constitutionality of the Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136.

Unfortunately, Congress is not required to cite the portion of the US Constitution that gives them the authority to enact such laws, so we are left trying to guess the authority they used. Every law Congress enacts must be a power that the US Constitution has specifically granted to the federal government. So the question becomes, under which authority of the US Constitution did Congress enact this law?

Based upon the definitions under Section 4024 under Public Law 116-136 it would appear that Congress was attempting to draw a nexus between federal programs and their ability to assert control over the properties. The only properties covered under this law are those that:


Federally-backed mortgages does make the property federal property to do with as they see fit. Nor does participating in any federally-covered housing program put the property under federal control. Furthermore, there is no nexus with the Commerce Clause since Congress' authority only extends to interstate and international commerce. So unless it is a mobile home that has crossed a State or national border, Congress has no authority over any private property within any State except for what the Fifth Amendment allows.

If the law is determined to be unconstitutional the CDC order will cease to exist, and every resident who benefited from this illegal temporary eviction moratorium order will lose a lot more than just their homes. They will be held financially accountable to the leaseholder for every penny, plus interest, that they didn't pay.

Earlier in May the DC District Court struct down the CDC mortgage moratorium.

Federal Judge Strikes Down CDC Moratorium On Evictions

A federal judge in Washington D.C. struck down a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention policy that halted landlords from evicting tenants.

thefederalist.com

However, the DOJ appealed the decision and the CDC mortgage moratorium was reinstated until the end of June.

Temporary Stay Leaves CDC Eviction Moratorium in Effect after Judge Rules it Unconstitutional

A federal district court judge in Washington, DC, ruled on May 5 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have the authority to issue a federal moratorium on evictions for nonpayment of rent. Within hours of the decision, the U.S.

nlihc.org

I can't see whereas Congress or the Executive has any such authority, but of all the constitutional violations we face these days, I don't want to pick this hill to die on.

Landlords have debts too, they have to service, so Congress Trump/Biden just avoided one calamity and replaced it with another, if they even did that. At some point the moratorium on evictions is going to end, and people are just going to end up tossed out in the streets anyway, landlords are still not going to be made whole, and may default one some debts.

Likely we are going to have a whole new can of worms to deal with, the law of unintended consequences.

I can force Congress apportioning more spending to help landlords that lost rents, maybe not made whole, but some monies going toward that.

 

[Rich2018]

What is the objective here ?

To enable landlords to evict people or to keep people with a roof over their heads ?