On this day 247 years ago, the founders declared independence from the most powerful government on earth, knowing that it would lead to war, because that government oppressed them far less than our current government does to us now.
Happy Treason Day, everyone. pic.twitter.com/Kkc4xiLour
— Spike Cohen (@RealSpikeCohen) July 4, 2023
“A republic, if you can keep it.” – Benjamin Franklin
Paul Pauker (3/15/17): A Republic, If You Can Keep It
The media’s daily outbursts about the danger to democracy posed by the current administration, while highly amusing, omit a key piece of information. The United States is not a democracy; the United States is a republic.
However, a common argument today claims that democracy as defined in modern times is not significantly different from republicanism as defined in the founding era. For example, the historian Ralph Ketcham argued, “The founders would not have been opposed to the modern connotations of the word ‘democracy,’ nor would they have used the word ‘republic’ to mark out a distinction from those connotations.” But this is demonstrably incorrect. Moreover, the widespread acceptance of the word ‘democracy’ to describe America is not a trivial matter.
For the most part, the founding fathers were strongly opposed to both monarchy and democracy. A monarchy was defined as rule by a king while a democracy was defined as rule by the people, and the powers of a king or the people could either be limited or unlimited. Nevertheless, the interest of the majority, like the interest of a king, is not a legitimate standard for determining whether something is right or wrong. Rather, the legitimate standards for a government are the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence; in particular, the principle that governments are instituted to secure the unalienable rights of individuals.
The founding fathers were overwhelmingly in favor of a republic, defined as rule by representatives of the people…
(9/8/20): Unalienable Rights and Why They Matter
In the Declaration of Independence, America’s founders defined unalienable rights as including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These rights are considered “inherent in all persons and roughly what we mean today when we say human rights,” said Peter Berkowitz, director of the State Department Policy Planning Staff.
These rights don’t just protect Americans at home but form the basis for a moral foreign policy abroad, said Mr. Berkowitz:
“We took obligations to champion them in 1948 when we led the effort in the United Nations to pass the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There have been presidents from both political parties [who] have championed human rights. And America’s founding commitments involved respect for the dignity that inheres in all human beings.”…
Rhetorical question on our Independence Day: Why is it democrats spend their tenures in office, especially as POTUS, trying their damnedest to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence and make Americans far less independent and free and more and more dependent on an overreaching dictatorial centralized government?
Spencer Lindquist: Inflation Causes Fourth Of July Cookout Items To Hit Record High: Report
Jonathan Turley: Biden’s unhinged ideas of Supreme Court and our Constitution: President distorts history to attack Supreme Court as ‘not normal’
Meanwhile, so why didn’t he do this in the first place…
When the SAVE plan is fully implemented in July 2024 several other changes will take effect – including a reduction in payments on undergraduate loans from 10% to 5% of incomes above 225% of the federal poverty line.
Borrowers with undergraduate and graduate loans will be allowed to pay a weighted balance of between 5% and 10% of their income based on the original balances of their loans. As an example, the Dept. of Education explained that a borrower with $20,000 in undergraduate loans and $60,000 in graduate loans would pay 8.75% of their income, as one-quarter of the balance would be at the 5% undergraduate threshold and the remaining three-quarters at the 10% graduate level.
Borrowers who originally had smaller balances – defined by the agency as $12,000 or less – will be eligible for forgiveness of their remaining balances after 120 payments, or the equivalent of 10 years in repayment. An additional 12 payments will be added to that figure for each additional $1,000 borrowed above that level up to a maximum of 20 years for undergraduate loans and 25 years for graduate loans.
Currently, IDR plans require all borrowers to repay loans for at least 20 to 25 years before receiving forgiveness.
The Education Dept. announced a virtual public hearing on July 18th on the changes and is soliciting written comments from stakeholders.
Student loans were mostly nationalized in 2010 in Obamacare-related legislation. The cost of college tuition rose more than 30% in the decade from 2010 to 2020 according to numerous studies, well beyond the pace of inflation during the same time period.
Back to court, Brandon…
Khaleda Rahman: Joe Biden’s Plan to Save Student Loan Forgiveness Faces Huge Hurdle
But Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the plan is sure to trigger future legal challenges, especially given the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative supermajority.
“Six justices will simply not countenance executive action to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars of student loans,” Coglianese told Newsweek.
“Although last week’s Court decision was based on the HEROES Act, a law passed 20 years ago, it is hard to see the same six justices taking any more favorable view of a similarly massive debt cancellation program under the Higher Education Act, an even much older statute but one containing language not markedly different from the HEROES Act.”
Coglianese said there are “permissible” ways for the Department of Education to provide debt relief, such as by tweaking payment terms or targeting more limited pools of borrowers.
“Some of these more limited changes are reflected in the Administration’s ‘Plan B’ and are likely to help some borrowers,” he said. “But it would be unrealistic not to expect the most substantial forms of relief in any Plan B to give rise to new litigation.”
Meanwhile, as democrats always scream “democracy” they continually and deliberately defy and disregard real ‘democracy’…
“Disappointing and cruel.” Those words from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) after the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Biden administration’s loan forgiveness program may say more than the opinion itself…https://t.co/v20iXN4AiV
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 3, 2023
…The court’s “cruelty” was in supporting Congress’s core constitutional power of the purse. Schumer’s disappointment in having to address and vote on the forgiveness of hundreds of billions of dollars in loans speaks volumes about the collapse of our constitutional values.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 3, 2023
Jonathan Turley: Constitutional Cruelty: Democrats now Oppose a Democratic Process on Student Loans
MORE:
This is an important news story getting little or no coverage amid the occasional homeless blurbs in the MSM. Setting up cardboard box sheds and tents on sidewalks/parking lots/ public parks are one thing. However, they are beginning to ‘migrate’ to private property and houses…
USA Today just posted my column on the spread of squatting around the country and its causes. This is not legally a difficult question, but politically it is proving insurmountable for some cities. https://t.co/wvJhDEWfIp
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 3, 2023
…If a car owner called police to report that someone was sitting in their vehicle without permission, police would make a decision on the spot about ownership based on the registration and other documents. They would not allow the person to drive off and tell the owner to work it out in court.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 3, 2023
A retiree friend of mine was away from her home is Sarasota, Florida, when a squatter moved in, Eventually, she was arrested after trashing the home for weeks but was promptly released. She then returned and stole my friend's car. https://t.co/wvJhDEWfIp
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 3, 2023
It’s a growing major problem for home and property owners. Houses for sale or ’empty’ while in probate process are being broken into and stubbornly occupied by the homeless … some stories of the owner just not home because they are traveling for extended periods of time or renters who have gone beyond the limit of being in-the-rears on rent and/or in violation of the rental agreement. And rightful owners— not the criminal invaders — are then yoked with the heavy expense and red tape of going through the legal process to have those invaders removed FROM THEIR HOME/PROPERTY! In stories I’ve read some owners are not even allowed to shut off utilities and water to the house/property or put it up for sale. Who has the legal right here that the authorities and the courts should be upholding … the person with the legal deed and proof of paying property taxes, or the breaking and entering hermits? This is a no brainer, y’all, but our legal system has turned it inside out. And it is indeed spreading across the country…
Dawn Papandrea: What Is a Squatter?
A squatter is a person who begins living on a property they don’t own without permission. They do not have any legal claim to the property and are not tenants, but after a period of time they may gain “squatter’s rights.”
The Universal Spectator 
Leave a comment