Skip to main content

During the question and answer session following his remarks yesterday, Joe Biden said something out loud the media are desperately trying to hide.

In this video segment listen carefully to what he says.  As the Supreme Court and lower courts have determined, the CDC has no legal authority to block the rights of property owners from rental income from their tenants.  This is a basic issue in the Constitution about private property rights and the limits of federal government to intervene.

However, think about Joe Biden taking an oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and contrast that oath against these public statements.  In his remarks Biden readily admits that all constitutional scholars have advised the White House that a regulatory eviction moratorium will *NOT* pass constitutional scrutiny.  He openly admits that….

….Then, in the very next sentence, after admitting any effort to initiate or extend a federal eviction moratorium violates the U.S. Constitution, he says he is intentionally directing federal agencies to trigger unconstitutional legal action in an effort to “buy time” and create a de-facto unlawful eviction moratorium.

In essence:…  ‘I know this is unconstitutional; and I know we will lose the constitutional legal argument; but we will do this anyway, because ideology’.

Put aside the sympathetic elements for a moment; and think BIG PICTURE.   Think beyond the issue at hand with evictions.  If the installed occupant of the White House can intentionally, and with willful and open intent, violate the United States Constitution; while admitting publicly he is violating the United States Constitution; then what makes you think they will stop at the issue of ‘evictions’.

Either we have a Constitution, or we do not.

Tell me how the willful violation of the Constitution -that is outlined in these public remarks- is not an impeachable offense?

Last edited by Jutu
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

White House press secretary Jen Psaki tried but failed on Wednesday to defend the Biden administration’s illegal decision to unilaterally reinstitute a 60-day eviction moratorium in direct defiance of the Supreme Court’s authority.

Her excuses for the unprecedented, widely panned move did nothing to deflect from what The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board described in a stinging op-ed Wednesday as the administration’s “premeditated lawlessness.”

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to leave the original eviction moratorium in place til the end of July but stipulated that an extension must go through Congress. But the Biden administration ignored this ruling and chose this week to institute a new eviction moratorium ostensibly only targeting communities with COVID.

The move was patently illegal, and several White House correspondents, much to their credit, tried to hold the administration accountable Wednesday by peppering Psaki with related questions during that day’s White House briefing.

Here’s one question below:

(Video: ABC News)

“Can you walk us through what changed from Monday to Tuesday, when it comes to the eviction ban? On Monday, Gene Sperling stood here and said the CDC has been unable to find the legal authority for even new targeted eviction moratoriums. There are many people across the administration who said the same thing,” one reporter noted.

Indeed, even President Joe Biden himself admitted while announcing the eviction moratorium Tuesday that it doesn’t pass “constitutional muster.”

Psaki responded by basically saying that the president had secretly asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to find a way for them to “extend the eviction moratorium” anyway.

“Sunday … the White House was engaged directly with the CDC, at the direction of the president, to ask them to look into what legal options, if any, there were to extend the eviction moratorium. That process was underway for a couple of days. The announcement yesterday was a reflection of exactly that,” she said.

Here’s the next question:

“Who inside the administration signed off on the legality of what the CDC proposed yesterday? Is that the CDC’s lawyers, the Justice Department?” a reporter asked.

Psaki replied by claiming that the CDC’s lawyers and the White House Office of General Counsel had signed off on it.

“The CDC’s lawyers, as well as our Counsel’s Office — yes. I’m not aware of the Department of Justice’s engagement, but of course, that might make sense. I would have to check on that,” she said.

FYI, this isn’t a justification for illegality …

Here’s the next question:

“So, after the president was clear that it wasn’t legal, Gene Sperling was clear that it wasn’t legal, is this a ‘roll the dice and see if it gets challenged’ position from an administration that may be doing something it knows is not on legal standing?” another reported asked.

This time Psaki responded by essentially lying and claiming the president wouldn’t have moved forward with the illegal move if he “didn’t feel there was legal standing and legal support.” But he’s already admitted that there’s no legal standing.

She then tried to excuse the move by claiming that the delta variant of the coronavirus justifies the administration’s arguably criminal behavior.

“I would also note that the conditions have changed. The rise of the delta variant, especially in communities where there are large numbers of unvaccinated individuals, where there are growing case numbers, is certainly something that has raised the alarm for us, it has raised the alarm for members of Congress, and it has certainly added to the need to take this additional step,” she said.

Here’s the next question:

“The president may support the legal justification, but he also publicly gave voice to doubts about the constitutionality. What’s the White House’s message then to Americans who heard what happened yesterday, heard what was said at this podium on Monday, can’t square the two, and are now disappointed that the president is signaling that he doesn’t respect the rule of law,” another reporter asked.

This time the White House press secretary theorized that the American people are so touched by Biden helping out deadbeat renters that they won’t notice or don’t mind him breaking the law.

“I’m not sure there are Americans evaluating it to that degree. Maybe there are some of [them] you have talked to. I don’t know. What the president has — his message to the American people, especially those who are concerned about losing their homes, being kicked out of their homes, is that he’s going to do everything in his power to make sure they can stay in their homes as long as possible,” she said.

The reporter wasn’t impressed by this ‘feelings over facts’ argument.

“But the president is a lawyer, spent 36 years in the Senate, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, eight years as vice president, half a year as president. He speaks often about democracy versus autocracy. He’s issuing or overseeing this order from the CDC in the face of doubts about its constitutionality, which he seemed to echo yesterday,” the reporter noted.

“If there’s no inconsistency here, the president is — I mean, there are many people out there who say that the president is essentially not giving voice to the ethic that he campaigned on. He didn’t call Congress back. He asked Congress to act; it didn’t. How do you square all that?” the reporter added.

In other words, despite Biden’s cries about how former President Donald Trump was acting like an autocrat, it turns out that he’s the one with the autocratic tendencies.

Psaki responded by basically saying that because the president thinks the new eviction moratorium has “legal justification,” that makes it OK.

“I think what’s important to note here is that the president would not have moved forward with a step where he didn’t feel comfortable and confident in the legal justification,” she said.

And here’s the final relevant question:

“What was the moment that the president became certain that he was on solid legal standing to move forward with this extension? And what was the argument, the specific legal argument, that won out and changed his mind?” a reporter asked.

Psaki responded by again claiming that the new eviction moratorium is entirely separate from the original moratorium.

“Well again, as I’ve been discussing, the justification from the legal team is that this is a different moratorium. It’s narrow. It’s targeted at the highest — at the areas highest impacted. It is not an extension of the national moratorium that was struck down just six weeks ago,” she said.

None of her answers seemed to do anything to stem the tide of anger and confusion brewing among the public. If anything, her answers only further cemented their growing suspicion that this administration doesn’t give a **** about the law.



Yeah we know how the Supreme Court ruled we just don't care." is essentially what she's saying.
Philip Melanchthon Wegmann
@PhilipWegmann
On the Constitution question of the eviction moratorium, @PressSec says "we are all aware of the Supreme Court decision at the end of June." She adds, "this is also going to be a temporary temporary solution."
Gadwall Drake III
@gadwalldrake
·
So basically, joe consulted with his cabinet and they agreed it’s ok to break the law. And oh, Psaki speaks of people losing “their” homes. The ones losing “their” homes are the landlords.
She doubts Americans care enough to examine this???  In other words, lets try to sneak stuff by and see if they notice. 😡😡😡

Will there be offices where people can go to turn in renters that won't pay rent but are still working and getting paid under the table, or are self employed and not reporting the money? I have seen many of these cases lately. What did they do with the money they were given, that was way above what they had been earning when they did pay rent?

Why do people always have to be full of HATE when replying to comments? Are you people   getting evicted from your homes? NO!  You obviously are NOT. And you don’t have to worry about where you are going to stay with your kids, and your pets, and where you will have to suddenly store all your belongings, and pay for that too, or get it all hauled to the dump!!  So, have some compassion, or bi___h  and moan since you seem to enjoy that so much!!  You don’t know what the Covid Relief was used for?? Food, electric bill, gas, and I imagine whatever they could pay on rent!! But try to understand that even in Alabama, rent can be very high including cheaper apartments!! Add on phone, TV, & internet, and I doubt very much that $1400 would pay for much at all. People had to decide whether to buy groceries and keep the lights on, or pay the rent for maybe 1 or 2 months and not eat??  What did all of you people complaining spend YOUR $1400 Covid Relief money on??!! I bet it wasn’t rent, or anything like it!!

@odiekarone posted:

Why do people always have to be full of HATE when replying to comments? Are you people   getting evicted from your homes? NO!  You obviously are NOT. And you don’t have to worry about where you are going to stay with your kids, and your pets, and where you will have to suddenly store all your belongings, and pay for that too, or get it all hauled to the dump!!  So, have some compassion, or bi___h  and moan since you seem to enjoy that so much!!  You don’t know what the Covid Relief was used for?? Food, electric bill, gas, and I imagine whatever they could pay on rent!! But try to understand that even in Alabama, rent can be very high including cheaper apartments!! Add on phone, TV, & internet, and I doubt very much that $1400 would pay for much at all. People had to decide whether to buy groceries and keep the lights on, or pay the rent for maybe 1 or 2 months and not eat??  What did all of you people complaining spend YOUR $1400 Covid Relief money on??!! I bet it wasn’t rent, or anything like it!!

I see nothing that suggests anyone is full of HATE and anger except for you. It wasn't just the "relief" checks people got. MANY people said they didn't need it and should be able to pass on it, we were some of those people.  As it was, we put it in our grandkids college funds. As I posted, people were getting more than they made working, unemployment and that 'gubmint' money on top of that. That is one reason they didn't want to go back to work. That is no secret, they will tell you straight up because, hey, for some reason they're entitled. I think they should be fired for refusing to go back, and at one shop here, when his crew didn't want to come back, the owner did tell them not to bother coming back when all the freebies ran out. Good luck to them when they do need to go back to work, with people knowing their poor work ethics. All of us are very patient with him because we know he and his wife are in it alone now, until he hires people willing to work for what they get. How do you think the owners of those places that are not getting any rent feel? Don't they have bills to pay? There are millions of people that depend on rental properties for their income. Your post sounds like more liberal "they have something so I should have it and not have to pay them for it". One trait you liberals have is pure hatred and resentment of people that have managed to achieve something in their lives, even though they struggled to get where they are and did without things you libs couldn't live without for one day, like your expensive cell phones, internet, cable and eating out. One day I would love to have someone explain where the dem's sense of entitlement comes from. Here's something else owner's most likely will have to worry about. Rent was deferred, not cancelled, and will become due. How many property owners will be stiffed by renters that still don't pay, have to spend more money to take them to court for that money or to get them out of their property? How many owners will lose that property? I think I posted that there are already cases in court because people ARE working, off the books, or self-employed and hiding the money, to keep from paying rent. IF you're in such dire straits maybe you should do away with that cell phone with all the bells and whistles, and shut off cable and internet for a while, and stop ordering out. I'm not sure what you consider bit***** and moaning, but we do have the right to discuss anything we want and give our opinions on it. I know you liberals can't stand anyone else having an opinion other than yours, or daring to speak against your gravy train, but sorry, here it is. I don't see how you should be allowed to hurt others just because China Joe Biden says you can get away with it. If you want to be of use instead of a burden use that anger and hate you are so full of where it belongs, on the democrats that weaponized Covid and used it to shut down the country, close businesses and ruin the ecomony.

*************************************

What did all of you people complaining spend YOUR $1400 Covid Relief money on??!!

I didn't get as much as $1400.00. Tell us, is that ALL you got? What other freebies did you get? What did you spend yours on? A new TV, like a lot of people did? Your internet bill so you can rant at other people and call them hate filled because they demand accountability? Maybe you upgraded your cell phone. Did you donate it to a food bank or animal shelter? That's what some people we know did with it. Of course they we are Republicans and we think of others, and some did like us, used it to help out family in one way or another. I'm sure some helped family catch up on bills.

Last edited by Jutu
@1130 posted:

that is laughable,, your full of emotion,,, I bet the person renting apt/house out is trying to pay bills also is emotional.  infringing on rights is wrong.  Government has zero right to interfere. We are trillions in debt and spending trillions and idiots think we should spend more.

I think this poster is someone's "other" ID. Or it is a 'post and run' poster that just posts and runs off to avoid acknowledging any replies. Then it lurks around in other names.

Image

Franklin County, Ohio, has announced that it will not comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recent 60-day eviction moratorium extension.

Under President Joe Biden’s direction, and pressure from U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and other members of “the squad” — who believe housing is a human right — the CDC announced the extension even though the courts have already ruled the agency lacked authority.

Franklin County Municipal Court Administrative and Presiding Judge Ted Barrows announced Thursday that the county will not comply, citing the appeals court ruling last month, The Columbus Dispatch reported.

Franklin County was not the only county in Ohio to reject the extension, the Dispatch reported. Toledo Housing Court Judge Joseph Howe said his court would abide by the appeals court decision and not honor the moratorium. Hamilton County Municipal Court followed suit, with judges voting to not comply with the moratorium.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati ruled in July that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lacked authority to impose an eviction moratorium on rental properties. A three judge panel unanimously upheld the lower court ruling, finding the CDC overstepped its authority when it issued the moratorium last year, Reuters reported.

Last edited by Jutu

Warning: Satire

MARTON TOWNSHIP, TX—Ryan Flowers has a problem: he's getting evicted. His evil landlord has asked him to vacate the premises, since he hasn't taken care of one tiny detail in over a year: "paying rent."

"If only there were some way I could go out and exchange my labor or services for money I could use to pay rent," he said sadly as he sat on a bench in the city, right in front of a giant "HELP WANTED" sign. He sighed and shuffled his feet.

"Alas. No such system of voluntary exchange of labor and services for money exists, so I have no choice but to be evicted."

"Sad! Not good!"

He then joined a group of protesters marching through the town demanding an eviction moratorium. The group marched past no fewer than 27 "Help Wanted" signs on their way to city hall.

@1130 posted:

that is laughable,, your full of emotion,,, I bet the person renting apt/house out is trying to pay bills also is emotional.  infringing on rights is wrong.  Government has zero right to interfere. We are trillions in debt and spending trillions and idiots think we should spend more.

See? As I said-

I think this poster is someone's "other" ID. Or it is a 'post and run' poster that just posts and runs off to avoid acknowledging any replies. Then it lurks around, not showing up on the list, to read the replies it got. I can think of another one that does that.

Last edited by Jutu

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×