The Constitutionality of CDC's Eviction Moratorium

[Terryj]

Supreme Court decisions are the Law of the Land, as the constitution is. The constitution is also "not cast in stone".....

Tshade, you are incorrect, the SCOTUS rulings can be over turned by and act of Congress. There have been 100's of Supreme Court ruling over-ruled by the Supreme Court itself of by Congress. Correct, the Constitution is not case in stone, it never was, this is why it incorporates and amendment clause.

 

[tshade]

Tshade, you are incorrect, the SCOTUS rulings can be over turned by and act of Congress. There have been 100's of Supreme Court ruling over-ruled by the Supreme Court itself of by Congress. Correct, the Constitution is not case in stone, it never was, this is why it incorporates and amendment clause.

Not really. When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

 

[skeptic llc]

The issue referred to the Supreme Court defaults to a null position until a new (and clearer) amendment is adopted

ie: it is allowed until ruled otherwise by the new amendment

Perhaps an emergency amendment process needs to be adopted - I would suggest a plebiscite in all 50 states.

(1) Is the "null position" that the law passed is legal as written unless the entire court agrees it is unconstitutional?
(2) An emergency amendment process likely has no more chance of succeeding than ordinary amendments do. Unpopulated states receive enormous political advantages from the current system in the form of blatantly disproportionate representation, that system cannot be changed without their disproportionately-weighted consent, so I don't see any change happening. No?

 

[Rich2018]

(1) Is the "null position" that the law passed is legal as written unless the entire court agrees it is unconstitutional?
(2) An emergency amendment process likely has no more chance of succeeding than ordinary amendments do. Unpopulated states receive enormous political advantages from the current system in the form of blatantly disproportionate representation, that system cannot be changed without their disproportionately-weighted consent, so I don't see any change happening. No?

1. Yes, that's what I meant - the law is allowed and remains provisionally constitutional

2. You would get a clear result, either 2/3 of the states would support a new amendment or they would not. And in actual fact I think there'd need to be two possible amendments - one for and one against.
Citizens would vote for one or the other

You could argue a national plebiscite is more democratic, though that would mean tearing up a large part of the Constitution.

 

[skeptic llc]

1. Yes, that's what I meant - the law is allowed and remains provisionally constitutional

2. You would get a clear result, either 2/3 of the states would support a new amendment or they would not. And in actual fact I think there'd need to be two possible amendments - one for and one against.
Citizens would vote for one or the other

You could argue a national plebiscite is more democratic, though that would mean tearing up a large part of the Constitution.

So (2) just means the states have to act quickly in (invariably) blocking whatever amendment is needed? Seems to me this takes the existing problem (as many see it, not saying you do) -- a system of governance frozen by the political impossibility of amending -- and making it worse by giving the same overrepresented legislatures of empty states even more power.

 

[Rich2018]

So (2) just means the states have to act quickly in (invariably) blocking whatever amendment is needed? Seems to me this takes the existing problem (as many see it, not saying you do) -- a system of governance frozen by the political impossibility of amending -- and making it worse by giving the same overrepresented legislatures of empty states even more power.

By tabling two amendments, one for and one against the constitutionality of the issue at hand, I can't see how the states could block it

The result of the plebiscite would be binding on the states' legislatures.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Money doesn't grow on trees. That is MY MONEY that the government is throwing around. In my town, there are HELP WANTED signs EVERYWHERE. I have talked to employers in my area and been told that they can't get people to work cause they can do better not working. There is something wrong with that.

If employers can't compete with unemployment insurance (at least where I live), they are paying shit. Maybe they should pay a livable wage?

 

[LostInSeattle]

Great OP on this thread, Glitch. Really informative. I don't know enough about the topic to have an informed opinion on it, but the post was very well done.

 

[BlueTex]

Supreme Court allows coronavirus eviction moratorium to remain in place | CNN Politics

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request to block a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention order that prohibits landlords nationwide from evicting certain tenants who fail to pay rent amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

www.cnn.com

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Supreme Court allows coronavirus eviction moratorium to remain in place | CNN Politics

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request to block a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention order that prohibits landlords nationwide from evicting certain tenants who fail to pay rent amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

www.cnn.com

SUCK IT, LANDLORDS

They argue that the moratorium has resulted in "over $13 billion in unpaid rent per month."

Better luck next investment, assholes.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Supreme Court allows coronavirus eviction moratorium to remain in place | CNN Politics

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request to block a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention order that prohibits landlords nationwide from evicting certain tenants who fail to pay rent amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

www.cnn.com

Yup, and along with that denial we see there was at least a 5-4 majority that agreed the CDC exceeded its authority, and the only reason the stay wasn't lifted and the moratorium immediately ended was because Kavanaugh thought, inexplicably, that the illegal behavior should be permitted to continue because it would "only" continue for a little bit longer.

 

[Glitch]

Once again Biden defies the Supreme Court and intentionally violates the US Constitution by reinstating the illegal eviction moratorium.

CDC issues new eviction ban effective through Oct. 3

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a new eviction ban across most of the country until October as the delta variant surges.

www.cnbc.com

This is grounds for impeachment. Democrats had better hope they maintain control of both houses of Congress after the 2022 mid-term if they want to keep their criminal as President.

 

[highroller]

Once again Biden defies the Supreme Court and intentionally violates the US Constitution by reinstating the illegal eviction moratorium.

CDC issues new eviction ban effective through Oct. 3

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a new eviction ban across most of the country until October as the delta variant surges.

www.cnbc.com

This is grounds for impeachment. Democrats had better hope they maintain control of both houses of Congress after the 2022 mid-term if they want to keep their criminal as President.

Take him to court. Just like the last guy.

 

[highroller]

This is grounds for impeachment.

I don’t know where you get that (other than trolling)

 

[gino]

What a crock of crap. I agree with the original idea of helping people during an epidemic. But, there are jobs out there waiting to be filled. Stop wasting my tax dollars on people who are sitting on their ass and not working.

 

[Glitch]

I don’t know where you get that (other than trolling)

It is called "Abuse of Power." Three federal courts, including the Supreme Court, held the eviction moratorium to be in violation of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court only allowed it to continue until June 31st since they held the decision just two days before it was due to expire. The Supreme Court specifically stated that the CDC could not reinstate the unconstitutional law.

Ignoring the Supreme Court and intentionally implementing an unconstitutional law is abuse of power, and qualifies as a "high crime" with regard to impeachable offenses. Presidents cannot simply make up whatever BS they wish. They must abide by the US Constitution at all times. Something your Dixiecrat President has failed to comprehend.

 

[highroller]

It is called "Abuse of Power." Three federal courts, including the Supreme Court, held the eviction moratorium to be in violation of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court only allowed it to continue until June 31st since they held the decision just two days before it was due to expire. The Supreme Court specifically stated that the CDC could not reinstate the unconstitutional law.

Ignoring the Supreme Court and intentionally implementing an unconstitutional law is abuse of power, and qualifies as a "high crime" with regard to impeachable offenses. Presidents cannot simply make up whatever BS they wish. They must abide by the US Constitution at all times. Something your Dixiecrat President has failed to comprehend.

If ignoring parts of the supreme court opinions was an impeachable offense, all presidents would be impeached. This is Politics. They will need to be taken to court on this matter and told AGAIN.

I'm sure you find this much worse than an attempted coup or bribing foreign official to lie about your political opponents....

 

[Glitch]

If ignoring parts of the supreme court opinions was an impeachable offense, all presidents would be impeached. This is Politics. They will need to be taken to court on this matter and told AGAIN.

I'm sure you find this much worse than an attempted coup or bribing foreign official to lie about your political opponents....

No, just the Democrat Presidents who have repeatedly violated the Supreme Court. As the very first Democrat President said, "[t]he Court has made its decision, now lets see them enforce it."

Obama and Biden in particular have completely ignored the federal courts when their actions are held to be unconstitutional. The only reason they remained in office and were not immediately impeached is because the Democrats control the majority and the media are Democrat sycophants and propagandists.

 

[NotreDame]

If ignoring parts of the supreme court opinions was an impeachable offense, all presidents would be impeached. This is Politics. They will need to be taken to court on this matter and told AGAIN.

I'm sure you find this much worse than an attempted coup or bribing foreign official to lie about your political opponents....

If ignoring parts of the supreme court opinions was an impeachable offense, all presidents would be impeached.

Then you have no difficulty providing the evidence. It isn’t difficult for you to provide. Find the elected President, a Supreme Court decision during the 4 year term, and conduct by the President that is conspicuously contrary to the Court’s decision. Can you do that?

I’m incredulous you can because such evidence doesn’t exist. The other President I can recall who knowingly and blatantly acted contrary to a decision by SCOTUS was Andrew Jackson.

Regardless, the fact some number of Presidents are rendered worthy of impeachment for knowingly and blatantly acting contrary to a decision by SCOTUS doesn’t establish impeachment isn’t merited. Your reasoning is based on the horror of an assumed undesirable consequence of impeaching every president who flips the middle finger to SCOTUS and says I’ll do whatever the hell I want and then engages in conduct SCOTUS decided to be unconstitutional and/or the President lacked any authority to act. Maybe every President who enaged in conduct the Court has said the President lacks the lawful authority to do so justifies impeachment.

 

[Glitch]

Then you have no difficulty providing the evidence. It isn’t difficult for you to provide. Find the elected President, a Supreme Court decision during the 4 year term, and conduct by the President that is conspicuously contrary to the Court’s decision. Can you do that?

I’m incredulous you can because such evidence doesn’t exist. The other President I can recall who knowingly and blatantly acted contrary to a decision by SCOTUS was Andrew Jackson.

Regardless, the fact some number of Presidents are rendered worthy of impeachment for knowingly and blatantly acting contrary to a decision by SCOTUS doesn’t establish impeachment isn’t merited. Your reasoning is based on the horror of an assumed undesirable consequence of impeaching every president who flips the middle finger to SCOTUS and says I’ll do whatever the hell I want and then engages in conduct SCOTUS decided to be unconstitutional and/or the President lacked any authority to act. Maybe every President who enaged in conduct the Court has said the President lacks the lawful authority to do so justifies impeachment.

Besides Biden's current illegal acts implementing a law the Supreme Court has held to be unconstitutional, there was also Obama's illegal off-shore oil moratorium in 2011. Even though the moratorium was held to be unconstitutional by the courts, Obama continued to impose his illegal moratorium for another 5 years. Even after being held in contempt by the courts in 2012. The leftist filth just laughed it off and did nothing.

Obama Offshore Drilling Moratorium OVERTURNED By Judge

Obama Offshore Drilling Moratorium OVERTURNED By Judge

www.huffpost.com

OBAMA FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT: Gulf Drilling Moratorium, U.S. Federal Judge Rules

(Bloomberg) – – The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.

politicalvelcraft.org

I can also go on extensively about all the Supreme Court decisions FDR blatantly ignored. Even going so far as to completely replace every member of the Supreme Court because he didn't like their ruling, like a true fascist. Which is not something even Andrew Jackson attempted.

 

[mrjurrs]

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?

Not exactly. You want them to abide by your interpretation of the supreme law of the land.

 

[Glitch]

Not exactly. You want them to abide by your interpretation of the supreme law of the land.

I would settle for them abiding by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, which leftist filth piss on in absolutely every case. The mental illness of leftist freaks prevents them from abiding by the law, as has been amply demonstrated over the last 5 years with continuous rioting and lawless activity by anti-American Democrat scum.

 

[mrjurrs]

I would settle for them abiding by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, which leftist filth piss on in absolutely every case. The mental illness of leftist freaks prevents them from abiding by the law, as has been amply demonstrated over the last 5 years with continuous rioting and lawless activity by anti-American Democrat scum.

Not enough sleep last night?

 

[What if...?]

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

All I'm gonna say is that COVID really proved we have a landlord problem in America.

Almost everybody who had an economic crisis during the pandemic had as their first problem paying landlords.

Do you think folks aren't going to start wondering why they're paying someone else's mortgage and insurance? Shouldn't making that payment for years qualify for a mortgage of one's own? How many folks with a mortgage could afford to save up for another mortgage?

 

[What if...?]

I would settle for them abiding by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, which leftist filth piss on in absolutely every case. The mental illness of leftist freaks prevents them from abiding by the law, as has been amply demonstrated over the last 5 years with continuous rioting and lawless activity by anti-American Democrat scum.

Five years?