www.politico.com
Democrats wanted a federal agency to regulate consumer financial issues outside of the influence of politics. They knew some of the things they were doing would be pulled back as soon as republicans took back control of funding, so they tried to bind future congresses by guaranteeing some minimum level of funding that couldn't be reduced by Congress. This is sort of a continuation of the fight over whether the President could appoint the head of the CFPB. Republicans argued you can't set up an agency that's not accountable to the president at all, more or less that you can be part of the executive or part of congress but Congress can't set up an executive agency that is outside of the executive branch. SO democrats said we're going to set up this agency and it's going to be guaranteed funding so Congress can't influence it as much, and it's also going to be insulated from the influence of the president because he can't remove the head. SOrt of shows their belief that things would be better (rather than tyrannical) if they put technocratic bureaucrats in charge rather than leave things up to democratic processes. Courts so far have said, no, Constitution doesn't allow you to just remove things from normal checks and balances.
As many agencies are already funded that way, this crank ruling won't survive long.Appeals court finds CFPB funding unconstitutional
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case brought by a payday lending group against the CFPB's 2017 payday lending rule.
This is a huge deal on the banking side and potentially for the housing market down the road. Especially with Republicans likely taking back control after next month.
This is super interesting legal stuff M17'er. If you can't enjoy a good separation of powers argument I just feel sorry for you and your family and friends.**
What federal agencies have a funding source that Congress can't touch? SEC and others can I guess self fund to an extent with fines? But is there another agency that is funded with a tax or appropriation that future congresses can't reduce?
As you pointed out earlier, no legislature can restrict future acts by that same legislature. So no agencies have funding that Congress can't touch. Just pass a bill.
See? Here you are talking about SEC autonomy and getting me all confused again.
I mean, I guess, but why not just direct all agencies be funded from the Fed, then we wouldn't need taxes.
Shhhh, don't let our stupid Congress get any ideas. Cause really, they could. I guess this judge doesn't realize that just because Congress could do something stupid, doesn't mean it would be unconstitutional.
Wait. Are we talking about Gary Gensler, Jerome Powell, or Greg Sankey? No threads, so got to use that reply button in the message.
I don't think that is the issue. Appropriation is the authority to spend the money, no matter the source. CFPB was granted the authority in perpetuity to spend money. The court simply ruled one Congress can't bind spending on a future Congress. There is no other federal agency that has authority to spend money in perpetuity. Some are given budgetary authority every year to spend money they collect through fines and other means, but that authority is renewed every year.
"From the Treasury" is wording in the constitution that was the basis of the lawsuit.
College Football Playoff Board. Its the board which selects CFP participants.
Not sure why you are arguing this point. All public funds held by the US government are by definition "US Treasury". The source of the funds do not matter.
Yes they can, but there is no need to pass another bill because the original Act is unconstitutional. The remedy for an unconstitutional Act of one Congress should not be dependent on an Act of a future Congress.
Because it involves spending of the US Treasury. The process for which is defined in the US Constitution.
I find politics an interesting read, including on here, but I also understand not wanting into politics on a sports board.
I'm not arguing the 1st point, the judge is. I agree with you on that point, that's why I disagree with the judge.
LMAO that libs here are claiming Democrat politicians would ever do anything that is not political & in their best interests.Appeals court finds CFPB funding unconstitutional
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case brought by a payday lending group against the CFPB's 2017 payday lending rule.
This is a huge deal on the banking side and potentially for the housing market down the road. Especially with Republicans likely taking back control after next month.
you sure you aint trying to pinch a loaf?Me trying to decide who I side with in a dispute between another government bureaucracy and the payday lending industry.
I’m sure the Dems would make sure the agency was completely neutral and would probably even select a Republican to head it. Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger come to mind. What could go wrong?***
