power that transgressed the rights of citizens under the first amendment, the 14th amendment, the article 2 duty of congress to tax and spend and the lone forgiveness decision. aoc is arguing against herself. only congress holds the power of the purse, not the president. he cannot act unilaterally by executive fiat. but ocasio-cortez and other democrats seem all too willing to give up their own authority and relative to handed over to joe biden. that is not how our constitution is written. curo, a lot of people don t know that and a lot of people as a direct result of the left controlling the system for a couple of generations creating a kind of ignorance that allows them. it is very clever. it allows them to keep people and make claims that are not true and to just gin people up. your activism as a mom and in your town has also been based in
circumvent the supreme court s ruling by canceling student loan debt through an alternate legal authority. he does have the right to do this. is it right or wrong? he doesn t have the right to do it. he is not circumventing the supreme court and congress. where does joe biden get off thinking he has the right to spend half a trillion dollars of taxpayer money by executive fiat? the constitution gives congress the power of the purse. congress is the only body authorized to spend money. what he is trying to do here. the left accuses republicans and supreme court of trying to undermine democracy. there is no greater threat to democracy than the idea that the president of the united states can with the stroke of his pen spend half a trillion dollars of our tax dollars without going to the people s elected representatives. and keep in mind when he announced this, he had the democrats had unified control of government, the house, senate and white house.
have this authority, so if he wants to do this, he s going to have to go with a legislative solution, not just by executive fiat. alicia: alan, a chance to respond. thanks. the court is making more political decisions. the decision on dobbs last year, the decision just yesterday on public accommodation and whether or not someone can claim a belief against gay marriage and, therefore, not provide public services, both of those decisions reverse prior precedent. go back to 1968, people said, well, i don t want to serve a black man and a white woman coming into my restaurant. that was unconstitutional and a public accommodation. that s why the court is losing trust, because they are going back on rule of law that they had established over the decades. and so it s no surprise to me. alicia: we do need to move on also to 2024 the, and we ll see how all this plays out over next year or so.
gas. it was about, according to the police, 6,000 on thursday night, about 4,000 last night when we were out on the grounds. this is all in response to be the government s decision to effectively use executive fiat from the presidency to bypass a vote in the national assembly to change the pensionable age of the french from 62 to 64. now, this is against a background of widespread national strikes, both in the public and indeed the private sectors since january in response to this policy which is now going to be focused on a no-confidence vote in the government coming on monday. even if that went against the government, macron, the president, would remain in power. all right. sam kiley, appreciate your reporting. thank you. thank you all for being with us this morning. there s still much more ahead in the next hour of cnn newsroom. it starts after a short break. a.
Teesta Setalvad reflects on the slide in India, once considered a leader of the developing world and a proud democracy that is today being dubbed “partly free” and an “electoral autocracy”.