I hadn’t given it any thought before, but I’m curious now…and the only commentary I can find online is this idiotic piece that is posted in multiple places that literally says: “The Pell grants are constitutional as they are covered by the legislation titled the Higher Education Act of 1965.”
Can anyone provide some insight?
(PS, I’m aware this isn’t an economics question, but the other thread sections don’t allow you to make the post a question.)
The Higher Education Act of 1965 makes it legal, but the Higher Education Act of 1965 is the main thing that isn’t constitutional, although it doesn’t really matter when the courts are monopolized. I don’t even know if they used a specific piece of the Constitution to validate the Act, but I’m assuming it would be the Commerce Clause. They use four specific clauses for nearly everything though: listen to this lecture by Tom Woods.
This is just as unconstitutional as the patriot act.