Read on Twitter
I was very angry about COVID relief EOs & the usurping of article 1 powers they implied yesterday. After reading the actual texts & underlying statutes, I am a bit embarrassed for overreacting. It isn't great, but it also isn't an assault on article 1. Details below 
1/X
1/X
Going through each EO, the easiest one to address is the rent/eviction EO. This essentially does nothing, it instructs HUD to do what they can to ease hardships for renters. Nothing to see here. 2/X
The payroll tax EO is clearly within his powers. Congress gave POTUS the power to delay collection of taxes by up to 1 year during declared emergencies. That is key, there is no change in how much taxes get collected, just when. 2/X
So this is not an end around of Congress abilities to set tax laws, it is using a Congressionally granted power to delay tax collection during an emergency. 3/X
The UI EO is more of a grey area. POTUS does have the power during states of emergencies to provide relief to people harmed by the emergency. What isn't clear is if he he has the power to divert money appropriated for DHS to the states to use for UI. 4/X
However, this will depend some on the text of the CARES act (it is CARES act money appropriated for DHS), but it is typical for emergency acts to give POTUS substantial leeway to move funds around so that the response can be nimble in the face of a complex & dynamic emergency 5/X
So the UI one is a maybe, but also maybe not. It would require a deep dive into the details of multiple laws to determine whether this kind of diversion is legal or not. 6/X
I haven't seen almost any discussion of it, but actually the student loan EO seems the most problematic. This EO uses statutes in student loan laws that allow a deferment of payment of up to 3 years during economic hardship. 7/X
However, economic hardship is explicitly defined in the statutes. It is defined by high debt-to-income ratio or being under 150% of the poverty line. This EO says the executive branch is modifying this definition unilaterally. I don't know why they would be able to do that 8/X
Moreover, if they are allowed to do that, it isn't clear why a future POTUS couldn't modify that definition to anything they want, effectively allowing people to defer their loans for 3 years whenever they want. 9/X
Now, I will say as a policy, that seems like a reasonable idea, being able to defer your student loans for up to 3 years for whatever life circumstance you want actually sounds like a decent policy. However, done by POTUS decree would be bad. 10/X
So in sum, it sure doesn't look like these are unconstitutional or trampling on article 1. The real prob is that Congress explicitly has been debating these issues & it is wrong for POTUS to EO around something Congress is currently explicitly dealing with. 11/X
However, that also is what was bad about the DACA EO, so this is a following of bad precedent. Do we need a Congress to seriously start flexing its Constitutional muscle as a co-equal branch of gov? 1000% yes, but that is now a multigenerational decline that needs reversing 12/X
These EOs are bad for various reasons, & pieces skirt questionable legality w the student loan one being a potential landmine of a precedent, though for a pretty narrowly defined issue w/o broad implications. 13/X
So mea culpa for getting very exercised about this before the details came out. This is not a serious threat to our status as a Constitutional republic, but rather a continuation of misuse of EOs to get around congress. End/X
