SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's primary gimmick is the following: it isn't dependent on funding from US Congress. At one time, it even used to be independent of the US Executive Branch until a court ruling in 2016 that the US President could fire the head of the agency.
A three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruled this week that the CFPB's structure is unconstitutional because Congress has no control over the agency's budget, which is funded entirely by the Federal Reserve. Under the terms of Dodd-Frank, the CFPB is entitled to receive a budget totaling up to 12 percent of the Federal Reserve's annual operating expenses, and the Federal Reserve is not allowed to refuse the CFPB's requests for funding.
Now, that funding model has been used to reverse a ruling by the CFPB as unconstitutional with the potential to put all its rulings since formation into question on the same constitutional basis.
Why it matters: The reasoning behind the ruling, if upheld, could potentially invalidate all the rules enacted by the CFPB over its 11-year existence — including regulations underpinning the U.S. mortgage system.
This is one of the big reasons I oppose the passing of bad law even when it serves a concrete good. It can take a long time to fix the massive problems that such law brings.
And note that a key argument by the court was that there was no precedent for the CFPB's unconstitutional structure. If there had been other agencies with similar setups, this could have been very hard to overturn. Similarly, the CFPB is a precedent for future breaking of the US Constitution along these lines. Without the ruling, there would have been a stronger case for future misdeeds of this sort.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 24 2022, @02:45PM (8 children)
Or the courts strike it down as unconstitutional. Guess which is happening first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2022, @07:22PM (1 child)
Which will rely on the most tenuous application of nearly irrelevant case law or some originalist take on the Constitution or something. Iy is REALLY telling that you're getting so worked up over such a small issue. It is pathetically transparent that Big Money simply doesn't want to be held accountable and you have nothing else to argue with aside from trying to say it is unconstitutional.
As usual Republicans whine about legislating from the bench until it suits their interests. Very fascist, much wow. Khallow is a rightwing stooge promoting feudalism under the guise of liberty. What a jerk.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 24 2022, @08:46PM
Yes, they must be cheating or something. It's so weird how a scheme that spent so much effort to dodge accountability ended up being unconstitutional.
There's a reason they said this scheme was unique in the annuals of legislative failure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2022, @05:05AM (5 children)
If this actually violates the Constitution, you should have no problem showing where the Constitution forbids this sort of funding mechanism. If I can quote Article I to show where appropriations for armies are limited to two years in length, surely you can quote the text that forbids this funding mechanism for the CFPB.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 25 2022, @01:29PM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2022, @06:10PM (3 children)
Interesting, now show us the part of the Constitution that forbids abortion. Go ahead, we'll wait.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 25 2022, @11:57PM (2 children)
How about you perform that exercise? I'm not interested because it's not relevant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2022, @10:53PM (1 child)
If you can't take responsibility for real rights being removed by Republicans then why should anyone give a shit about your whiny comolaints about the CFPB? Shows how bankrupt rightwing morality is, thanks pal.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 26 2022, @11:21PM
I can't take responsibility for Republicans any more than I can take responsibility for your irrationality. It's a non sequitur.