It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the three-judge panel in PHH Corporation v. CFPB:
This is a case about executive power and individual liberty. The U.S. Government’s executive power to enforce federal law against private citizens – for example, to bring criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement actions – is essential to societal order and progress, but simultaneously a grave threat to individual liberty.
The Framers understood that threat to individual liberty. When designing the executive power, the Framers first separated the executive power from the legislative and judicial powers. “The declared purpose of separating and dividing the powers of government, of course, was to ‘diffus[e] power the better to secure liberty.’” Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 721 (1986) (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring)). To ensure accountability for the exercise of executive power, and help safeguard liberty, the Framers then lodged full responsibility for the executive power in the President of the United States, who is elected by and accountable to the people. The text of Article II provides quite simply: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. And Article II assigns the President alone the authority and responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Id. § 3. As Justice Scalia explained: “The purpose of the separation and equilibration of powers in general, and of the unitary Executive in particular, was not merely to assure effective government but to preserve individual freedom.” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 727 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Kavanaugh notes with alarm the vast powers of the “headless fourth branch of government” of agencies that are independent from presidential control, and thus not answerable to American voters. He continues, “Because of their massive power and the absence of Presidential supervision and direction, independent agencies pose a significant threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Edumakated
Do you know why this law was bought in, specifically?
If so, would you mind giving us a hint as to what it is, why it was bought about, and what you would rather have seen in its place? I am asking you because you stated that you have some experience in related fields, so your perspective would probably be more helpful than that of someone whose understanding of the subject matter is less detailed.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Edumakated
So would you say, that the regulations as they stand are not capable of protecting the consumer from the sort of predatory behaviour that was the root cause of the last banking collapse? Or is the situation rather more, that the regulations protect only government from the consequences, and also the blame? I mean, is there no laudable, meritous element to the Dodd-Frank Act at all?
originally posted by: odzeandennz
i bet half the people who will star this thread dont even know anything about this law or never heard of the cfpb or the reason for is inception. 'thread starter', 'Obama', 'unconstitutional; stars and flags...
To remedy the constitutional flaw, we follow the Supreme Court’s precedents, including Free Enterprise Fund, and simply sever the statute’s unconstitutional for-cause provision from the remainder of the statute. Here, that targeted remedy will not affect the ongoing operations of the CFPB. With the for-cause provision severed, the President now will have the power to remove the Director at will, and to supervise and direct the Director. The CFPB therefore will continue to operate and to perform its many duties, but will do so as an executive agency akin to other executive agencies headed by a single person, such as the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Edumakated
Edumakated...
Right, so perhaps I should have worded my question differently...
The last banking collapse was nothing to do with banks charging too high of an interest rate on loans, but to do with the banks having been staggeringly unwise with the lending they were doing, the sub prime fiasco being an example. So when the banks just "stopped offering some products", are you talking about those products that were fantastically stupid and caused the whole mess in the first place? Because if so, I really do not have a problem with that.
What am I missing here, is what I am trying to ask?
originally posted by: schuyler
One of the issues you touched on was that banks made sub-prime loans and "stated' loans where the borrower did not have to prove sufficient income to pay back the loan. One of the criticisms at the time was driven by the liberal media and stated that banks were "unfairly" NOT loaning to 'poor people' therefore that was discrimination. I remember Jesse Jackson standing on the steps of a big bank bemoaning how banks discriminated against Blacks. So there was considerable liberal pressure brought against the 'big bad banks' over this issue, whereupon they started these practices that led to the crash. Yet you have stated that speculators also abused the liberalization of loan rules and basically abused the system.
Is this a fair reading of what happened, or is this a diversion to the more important points?