• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge rules that consumer protection bureau is unconstitutional

jmotivator said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...u-is-unconstitutional/?utm_term=.5f2b9b8e658f

"A New York federal judge ruled Thursday that the structure of the Consumer of Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional and that the watchdog agency should be eliminated.

Senior U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska threw out the bureau’s lawsuit against a New Jersey company that the bureau alleged had scammed former NFL players and 9/11 emergency medical workers out of millions of dollars.

Preska’s ruling contradicts a decision by a U.S. appeals court on the issue this year and increases the likelihood that the CFPB’s constitutionality could become fodder for the Supreme Court. Noting that the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was not binding in New York, Preska said she “respectfully” disagreed."
Click to expand...

And the Southern Poverty Law Center make good video police.
 
Harshaw said:
Actually, as created, the CFPB was despotic, as it was accountable to no one. Which is what makes it unconstitutional.

Constitutionality isn't a "technicality." The Constitution is what protects us from despotism. If you throw your hands up and say "so what if it's 'technically' unconstitutional," it's you who prefer the more despotic government, not I.

And I suspect your motivation is indeed "poure [sic] partisanship," as your avatar indicates.

(Not that the CFPB protected anyone from the government, or was even intended to.)
Click to expand...

The democrats created this purposely so the CFPB would not be accountable. Now there is a challenge that this bureau is unconstitutional. The democrats have no one to blame but themselves. One more mess that the Obama administration left us.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Nice post.

It clearly demonstrates why people never take anything you say seriously Vern.

Bush and McCain both told congress to act on the situation long before the crash. McCain was called a racist for his efforts....remember?

[video]https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=McCain+warned+congress+about+FNMA&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=615af2bb3c014689e48d0e86295afa3c&PC=NMTS&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=undefined&sc=0-17&qs=n&sk=&cvid=615af2bb3c014689e48d0e86295afa3c&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dMcCain%2bwarned%2bcongress%2bab out%2bFNMA%26form%3dEDNTHT%26mkt%3den-us%26httpsmsn%3d1%26refig%3d615af2bb3c014689e48d0e 86295afa3c%26PC%3dNMTS%26sp%3d-1%26ghc%3d1%26pq%3dundefined%26sc%3d0-17%26qs%3dn%26sk%3d%26cvid%3d615af2bb3c014689e48d0 e86295afa3c&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=25E3B55F55F074A5C51F25E3B55F55F074A5C51F&FORM=WRVORC[/video]


But, never let the truth slap you onside the head...…….Right Vern?
Click to expand...

UH-OH. Now you've done it. This could go on awhile ... if you let it.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
The democrats created this purposely so the CFPB would not be accountable.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that autonomy was the intent, yes. But that's why it's unconstitutional.
 
Harshaw said:
No. They're just irrelevant to the actual issue, the constitutionality.
Click to expand...

No harshaw, my second post, that you replied to, did address the issue of constitutionality. You cant address those points so you continue to flail at my first post.


Besides, I addressed what you said in your first post I responded to succinctly: if it's a good idea, then do it constitutionally.
Click to expand...

Hey, here's a crazy idea, stop flailing at my first post and respond to the points in the second one. Again you responded to it so you don't get to pretend to not know about it. Here it is again special for you. I'll highlight the parts that address constitutionality to make it easier for you.

Vern said:
I wasn’t really commenting on whether the “structure is legal”. One judge says no, one court says yes. I was commenting on people who seem to be celebrating the “supposed” end to something their conservative masters told them is bad. So I made no “emotional appeal”. I simply provided an easily understood example of its purpose and necessity. The "emotional" part of course comes from the right. They are told to hate "X" and then obediently hate "X" no questions asked. And from a "reason" perspective, wouldn't you trust an appeals court over a judge?

But just so you know, the president cant just fire the fed chairman or the head of the OCC. He has to have cause. That’s what it means to be an “independent agency” (as pinqy mentioned). And if that’s not good enough there’s always Humphrey's Executor v. United States. So I just don’t think one judge’s ruling is going to end the “evil CFPB”.

Just so you know, regulation Z in the CFPB would have prevented the Bush Mortgage Bubble.
Click to expand...

If you just want to post "nuh uh its unconstitutional" then maybe a debate forum isn't the best use of your talents.
 
Vern said:
No harshaw, my second post, that you replied to, did address the issue of constitutionality. You cant address those points so you continue to flail at my first post.




Hey, here's a crazy idea, stop flailing at my first post and respond to the points in the second one. Again you responded to it so you don't get to pretend to not know about it. Here it is again special for you. I'll highlight the parts that address constitutionality to make it easier for you.



If you just want to post "nuh uh its unconstitutional" then maybe a debate forum isn't the best use of your talents.
Click to expand...

Oh, the Federal Reserve, and the like? I assumed (erroneously, I guess) you had seen what I had already written about it in this thread before you posted:

Harshaw said:
ThoughtEx. said:
I kinda hope that SCUTUS upholds this, on account of that the Federal Reserve is structured similarly and this could set enough of a precedent to get them declared unconstitutional.

We can alway redesign a Consumer Protection Department. If it means getting the cancer that is the fed to be cut out.
Click to expand...

Works for me.
Click to expand...

So yeah, already addressed.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Nice post.

It clearly demonstrates why people never take anything you say seriously Vern.

Bush and McCain both told congress to act on the situation long before the crash. McCain was called a racist for his efforts....remember?

[video]https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=McCain+warned+congress+about+FNMA&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=615af2bb3c014689e48d0e86295afa3c&PC=NMTS&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=undefined&sc=0-17&qs=n&sk=&cvid=615af2bb3c014689e48d0e86295afa3c&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dMcCain%2bwarned%2bcongress%2bab out%2bFNMA%26form%3dEDNTHT%26mkt%3den-us%26httpsmsn%3d1%26refig%3d615af2bb3c014689e48d0e 86295afa3c%26PC%3dNMTS%26sp%3d-1%26ghc%3d1%26pq%3dundefined%26sc%3d0-17%26qs%3dn%26sk%3d%26cvid%3d615af2bb3c014689e48d0 e86295afa3c&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=25E3B55F55F074A5C51F25E3B55F55F074A5C51F&FORM=WRVORC[/video]

But, never let the truth slap you onside the head...…….Right Vern?
Click to expand...

thanks for the you tube video that tells you what want to believe. If you're ever interested in the facts, here's a nice thread for you.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-p...-bubble-faqs-w-1083-1531-a.html?highlight=faq
 
Zyphlin said:
Court cases and constitutional law are not about "evil" or "good", or about "helping average americans" or not. It's about the law, plain and simple, impartial and blind. It's not a question of whether or not overturning something or upholding something will be good or bad, or help or hurt people, but rather is it or is it not legal.

If the argument you have against this is one of emotion then it's a flawed one in a discussion regarding a court case where judges are expected to be dispassionate arbiters, not individuals who will ignore the law in favor of what feels good.

This Judge's findings is that congress cannot established entities that take power away from the executive branch and provide no reasonable level of recourse from the Executive branch, as article II vests executive power to the POTUS, and thus such an instance would run afoul to the concept of separation of powers and as such the board in it's current standing under the law was unconstitutional. It doesn't speak to whether the board was good or bad, necessary or unnecessary, but simply the legal standing of it.

If you have a legal argument as opposed to an appeal to emotion, appeal to tradition, or something of the sorts as to why you disagree with it then that's a reasonable thing to put forth and articular. However, just lamenting the ruling because of your feelings on the worth of the board and attacking the verdict over that is foolish.
Click to expand...

I do find it interesting that a search of "trump and the cfpb" shows a determination to defang/eliminate the cfpb.

Result after result on different aspects.

Seeing that and knowing that corporate interests get what they want from congress, even when voters do not want it, as well as not getting what business doesn't want even when voters do, I would say this is all about doing away with pesky consumer protections completely.

It would already be gone if trump could have just done it with an phone call.

Which is what this ruling says it should have been, if I'm reading it right.

But hey, at least congress will probably do something this time, as its the kind of thing donors like.

The financial industry must be Unchained!

What could possibly go wrong, right?
 
jmotivator said:
Maybe read the ruling? It isn't a cabinet position, the head of the bureau doesn't operate at the behest of the President, it is not funded by Congress, so it lacks any direct oversight by any elected official or officials.
Click to expand...

By design.

So lobbyists couldn't just have it defanged. Funded by treasury so congressfolk couldn't just defund it.

One can see where the corporation party would be dead set against it.
 
jmotivator said:
LOL. And? The construction was what the people had a problem with. A bureau with power over private businesses and individuals that lacks oversight by elected officials is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

"Oversight by elected officials" was what these rules were addressing.

Elected officials side with the donor class most of the time.

Republicans have what it does.

If it hadn't been written the way it was it would have been killed in the crib.

And consumers wouldn't have gotten their 11.8 billion dollars back.
 
jmotivator said:
Ummmm... what? You just ignore failed legislation, lost court battles... you know, the actual checks and balances that keep all presidents in check?




Well, no, I just happen to know that the president's power is in check by the judicial and legislative branches.

Maybe this will help you...

Click to expand...


You go with this in a world where your side is doing anything it can to pack the supreme court and gerrymander your way to permanent majorities.

So who would be doing the "checking" again? Teammates?

I don't think that's how a "check" works.

Maybe you're thinking of a "rubber stamp".
 
Harshaw said:
Oh, the Federal Reserve, and the like? I assumed (erroneously, I guess) you had seen what I had already written about it in this thread before you posted:

So yeah, already addressed.
Click to expand...

oh Harshaw, thanks for the laughs. I point out similar independent agencies, a supreme court case and the simple logic of "a judge vs appeals court" and you post "this guy hates the fed". You're still not addressing my points.

Again, if you just want to post "nuh uh its unconstitutional" then maybe a debate forum isn't the best use of your talents.
 
jmotivator said:
So what you are saying is that Trump couldn't get Obamacare repealed because of the check against his power exerted by the Confress? Welcome to my argument, Mustachio! Wave goodbye to your ignorance.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

Yet we have cabinet members apparently chosen solely on their hostility towards the missions of the departments they were chosen to head.

So we'd have a fox in that henhouse too if it was normally structured. Some predatory lender CEO.

Which is WHY it wasn't structured that way.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Are we talking about the same government agency that was set up to appease the millions of Americans who lost their ass?

Set up by the very same people who allowed the banks to hand out heartbeat loans?

Run by the very same people who allowed financial institutions to run amok?

Man-O-Man...… I sure felt safer when they created this agency! :lamo
Click to expand...

No.

It is the oppostite of that.

If it was that no one on the right would he complaining.
 
Nilly said:
So the function of the agency isn't the problem, rather then structure of its leadership?
Click to expand...

No, the function of the agency is the problem.

The structure of the leadership is the attack vector.

The administrations rhetoric closely tracks the anti-cfpb lobby's rhetoric. (If you can believe that.:mrgreen:)
 
Vern said:
oh Harshaw, thanks for the laughs. I point out similar independent agencies, a supreme court case and the simple logic of "a judge vs appeals court" and you post "this guy hates the fed". You're still not addressing my points.
Click to expand...

No, Vern; I did address the point. As ThoughtEX pointed out, the implications of the finding that the CFPB is unconstitutional can be wide-ranging, and it can bring down the agencies you cite.

Which would be perfectly OK with me.

Implicit in that, to the keen reader, would be two things:

1) That the conflict between this ruling and the Court of Appeals for the DC circuit is something which should be potentially addressed by the Supreme Court, and

2) I think the reasoning may/should apply just to those agencies as well.

Did I say that's way it would end up? Of course I didn't. I said "works for me," which means only that I'd be good with it if that's how it goes down.

All of that should have been clear, and it addresses head-on what you said.

Again, if you just want to post "nuh uh its unconstitutional" then maybe a debate forum isn't the best use of your talents.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that's not what I said.

But what nobody has said is "evil CFPB." It's a strawman argument nobody made. And bringing up anecdotes of the good that it does is simply irrelevant to the question of constitutionality.

As for the substance, I've got no general problem with consumer protection laws, or even some kind of agency which pays specific attention to them. But I'm for constitutionality above that.
 
What if...? said:
No.

It is the oppostite of that.

If it was that no one on the right would he complaining.
Click to expand...

BS.... it isn't a left and right thing to begin with as you put it..

The gov't created the financial mess just as much as the banks did.

Just ask Barney.
 
Barnacle said:
I still believe that the CFPB was set up to be a slush fund and extortion agency to fund the democrats.

The CFPB was Elizabeth Warren's brain child. 1,600 employees hand-picked by the top few of that agency.
Warren had also planned to be the director of that agency, but Obama appointed someone else instead.
Still, the idea behind that agency remained the same:

extort vast amounts of $$$ from big businesses under the pretext of them having "screwed over" the poor consumer,
disburse some of the extorted money to the consumer "victims",
keep most of the money without having to show where it actually goes to.

Fantastic scheme ... (grin)
Click to expand...

Or not.
 
First of all not only does the executive provide a check via a pink slip, the statute goes to the trouble to explain the standard to be applied. 'For Cause' does not mean no check exists through the conventional executive structure, it means that such a check does exist but that it is not broadly discretionary - other words not at the mere whim or fancy of Mr. President.

Other checks depend on the nature of the power used by the agency. There are multiple checks to ensure budgetary transparency and oversight

https://democracyjournal.org/briefing-book/why-the-cfpb-is-constitutional/

"And there are many other ways the agency is held accountable: unlike other bank regulators, it is subject to a statutorily imposed budget cap; it must undergo Government Accountability Office audits and Federal Reserve Board Inspector General oversight; it is subject to the strictures of the Administrative Procedures Act; by statute it must use cost-benefit analysis; and, as with other agencies, the bureau’s actions are reviewable by the courts."


As for overreach in regulation or application , the statute provides an alternative check using the Financial Stability Oversight Council which can override any decision by the CFPB. Now lets learn more about this council providing the needed policy and enforcement check that the President does not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Stability_Oversight_Council

"The Financial Stability Oversight Council has ten voting members:[24]
Secretary of the Treasury (chairs the Council)
Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Comptroller of the Currency
Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency
the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration Board
an independent member (with insurance expertise), appointed by the President"

Now pay attention to who appoints most of those members to their jobs and gives them their marching orders. Why its Mr. President!

Nothing it the statute protects this agency for the reach of federal courts and in a lawsuit happy Washington, you can already see the impacts of that check.

Congress has not been bashful either. There have been extensive hearings since the agency's inception and clearly an agency they molded, can be remolded with a bill in the hopper and a few votes.

Congress has a history of trying unconventional structures in regulatory agencies over the years to provide less direct but nevertheless effective oversight. They are entitled to do just that.
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
By design.

So lobbyists couldn't just have it defanged. Funded by treasury so congressfolk couldn't just defund it.

One can see where the corporation party would be dead set against it.
Click to expand...

Unchecked government power is a greater threat to the population than any lobbyist. It's like trying to cure the flu with cancer.
 
it's always great to know that the government is ready to screw over Joe Six Pack every opportunity they get a chance to **** the average American up the ass .........


'all men are created equal' unless you are the man; then you can **** over all the other folks that were created equal & make you & your rich friends richer & better than equal ..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom