Disclaimer: This Political Science Essay Example is here so that you can look what a good paper looks like and produce your own piece. In case you need your essay written or to buy a personal statement, we can also help!
Issue
1) Issue - Is President Biden constitutionally allowed to use the 2003 HEROES Act to forgive Federal student loans?
Rule
The President is granted expansive powers concerning economic and foreign affairs, including being able to make a wide range of executive orders.
Application
President Biden can use the 2003 HEROES Act to forgive Federal student loans using executive action. However, whether this action is proper is debatable. By equating the current economic conditions to those of 9/11 to explore potential options for congressional action, he could be extending his authority beyond what is granted him under constitutional law (Goitein, 2022).
Conclusion
While President Biden can attempt to employ this action, it may be considered an inappropriate expansion of presidential powers.
2) Issue - What are the potential effects of student loan forgiveness on state economies?
Rule
The President has enacted the 2003 HEROS Act which would forgive federal student loans.
Application
Loan forgiveness could have a positive effect on state economies, leading to increased consumer spending and investments in local economies. Consumers may be able to purchase larger items like homes or cars, while businesses will see increased demand due to increased purchasing power among consumers. Furthermore, states that hold federal student loans may benefit from fewer defaults and fewer collection costs. However, these states may also lose out on revenue that is generated through loan repayment interest.
Conclusion
Although there are some drawbacks, overall loan forgiveness appears to potentially offer more benefits than losses for states’ economies. The potential positives of this policy justify why a State would want to use the judicial branch to stop the President from implementing the act.
3) Issue - Can the President use the 2003 HEROES Act, even when opposed by state governments?
Rule
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative split (Vogue, 2021), suggesting that they are likely to uphold presidential authority granted under the 2003 HEROES Act.
Application
Given the current Supreme Court makeup, they are likely to rule in favor of the President's ability to use the 2003 HEROES Act. The majority opinion is expected to point out that the President has the constitutional power and legal authority to do so. Furthermore, any restrictions on the President’s power would need to be outlined clearly for the court to deny these powers. Possible dissenting opinion statistics will challenge the constitutionality of the limitations, claiming the President should not have this level of executive power. They may argue that such decisions require passage from Congress or at least bipartisan agreement.
Conclusion
With a 6-3 conservative split, the Supreme Court is likely to rule in favor of the President’s usage of the 2003 HEROES Act, citing his constitutional power and legal authority.
4) Issue
The issue is whether the requirement that chip makers provide childcare to get federal funding is an example of federalism.
Rule
Federalism involves the coordination of law and policy between federal, state, and local governments for the shared governance of a nation.
Application
Providing childcare as a condition for receiving federal funding can be seen as coordination between the federal and local governments, as the federal government is providing funds that must then be used at least partially in line with its requirements.
Conclusion
The requirement that chipmakers provide childcare to get federal funding can therefore be considered an example of federalism.
5) Issue
The CHIPS Act of 2022 includes a childcare requirement that provides incentives to produce semiconductors and science. This requirement could be potentially challenged in court.
Rule
To be eligible for this requirement, parents must demonstrate they are employed in the semiconductor industry or receiving the new Child Tax Credit (CTC).
Application
The parent(s) could challenge the requirement due to violating several constitutional rights including their first amendment right to free speech by requiring them to speak against their wills in the form of employment, their fifth amendment right to due process by requiring them to show proof of employment in the semiconductor industry to receive the benefit or their ninth amendment right to privacy by mandating the information which must be given up to receive the new CTC.
Conclusion
The parent(s) could file their challenge to the childcare requirement in the Supreme Court as the requirement violates their Constitutional rights. They could make arguments based on their First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendment Constitutional rights with evidence demonstrating the violation of said rights.
