Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!


brandymac27

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I'm going to take issue with this.  I'm a lawyer that deals almost exclusively in the same area of the law as the CFPB operates.  My boss is a former top CFPB official.  My firm has followed this as closely as anyone in the world.  While it is true that most people believe that this aspect of Dodd-Frank is going to be found unconstitutional at some point in the future, (specifically in PHH v. CFPB) the law as it currently exists is unclear, and many legal scholars thought the better legal argument is the common legal principle that the more specific law rules.  Here, Dodd Frank is the more specific law over the Vacancies Act.   

 

Thats what Larry the Non-Lawyer assumed. 

 

I could see see a ruling that the more specific law overrides the general. (Say Congress passes a rule covering the heads of all agencies, but also passes a specific rule that only applies to the head of the CIA. Obviously, they intended that one agency to be different.)

 

Or I could see a ruling that the more recent law overrides the previous. (Congress intended to override the previous law, but failed to say so explicitly). 

 

 


 

I confess that I really don't see this claim that the D-F rule is unconstitutional, either. But I assume that that's another matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I confess that I really don't see this claim that the D-F rule is unconstitutional, either. But I assume that that's another matter. 

 

 

It's not the entire Dodd Frank Rule that may be unconstitutional.  It is simply the provision in Dodd Frank that says the CFPB Director can only be fired by the President "for cause."  This effectively isolates the agency, which is part of the executive branch, from oversight by the President.  

 

Here is a short summary:  https://thinkcompliance.co/dc-court-finds-cfpb-structure-unconstitutional/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civil service workers already have that protection. (And it didn't take an amendment, to give it to them). 

 

And don't personnel changes among military general officers require congressional approval?  

 

I would argue that congress has the authority (subject to Presidential veto) to create agencies which are less political. (And to devise procedures to try to serve that goal).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Larry said:

Civil service workers already have that protection. (And it didn't take an amendment, to give it to them). 

 

And don't personnel changes among military general officers require congressional approval?  

 

I would argue that congress has the authority (subject to Presidential veto) to create agencies which are less political. (And to devise procedures to try to serve that goal).  

 

Well there is kind of a big difference between the sole Director of a powerful federal agency, and one of 2.8 million federal employees or one of several hundred generals.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...