d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Richard Cordray's Political Stunt
123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 9,374
Joined: Mar 16 2008
Gold: 3,260.00
Nov 27 2017 09:01am
Quote
The Trump Administration ducked a fight with Richard Cordray by letting him quit rather than fire him for cause. So much for conciliation. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director on Friday provoked a bureaucratic brawl, and a fight over proper legal authority, by appointing his own replacement.

When announcing his resignation earlier this month, Mr. Cordray left ambiguous the date of his departure. Many didn’t expect him to leave until next week, and his exit Friday appeared to blindside the White House. President Trump quickly invoked the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (commonly known as the Vacancies Act) to appoint Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney as acting director of the bureau. The law allows the President to temporarily fill a vacancy at an executive agency with a government official who has been confirmed by the Senate.

But on his way out Mr. Cordray appointed his chief of staff Leandra English as the bureau’s deputy director, a position that has been vacant for two years. Dodd-Frank lets the bureau’s deputy director serve as the acting director “in the absence or unavailability of the Director.”

Ergo, Mr. Cordray claims Ms. English is the new acting director. “If you look at the CFPB language it is very specific and it was designed to protect an agency that we knew would be under a lot of pressure,” said Barney Frank, who was hauled out of retirement over the weekend as a Dodd-Frank author. “Everything was structured for its independence.”

Not so fast. Merely because Mr. Frank wishes it were so does not mean Congress can supersede other federal law—in particular the Vacancies Act. As a memo from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) explains, 40 other office-specific statutes provide alternatives to the Vacancies Act.

Even when it is not the “exclusive means for filling a vacancy, the [Vacancies Act] remains an available option” for a President to fill an opening, says the OLC memo. And “the President’s designation necessarily controls” unless a statute includes language expressly stating otherwise. Dodd-Frank does not.

OLC is the government’s main legal authority on executive power and it has consistently supported this interpretation, including in 2003 with regard to the acting director of OMB and in 2007 with the acting Attorney General. This interpretation also adheres to the only federal circuit court opinion on the subject, which was issued by an Obama appointee on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last year.

The Ninth Circuit upheld Lafe Solomon’s appointment under the Vacancies Act as general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, noting that neither the Vacancies Act nor the National Labor Relations Act “is the exclusive means of appointing an Acting general counsel” and that “the President is permitted to elect between these two statutory alternatives.”

In other words, Mr. Trump is acting well within his legal authority. If Ms. English resists, it would be cause for immediate dismissal. Dodd-Frank lets the President fire the director for cause, and resisting a President backed by the legal arguments of the Justice Department would qualify. A presidential order supported by Justice is presumed to be legitimate unless it is overturned by an Article III court.

This fiasco underscores that the CFPB is a rogue agency whose structure is an affront to the Constitution’s separation of powers. A panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in PHH Corp. v. CFPB that the “independence” Mr. Frank so prizes is unconstitutional and that the bureau’s director must be subject to presidential authority. The full circuit, which former Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid packed with Obama nominees in 2013, vacated the decision while it considers the case en banc.

It’s possible that Mr. Cordray planned all this with the hope of creating an incident Monday when business opens at the CFPB. And, lo, late Sunday evening Ms. English sued the Trump Administration claiming Mr. Mulvaney’s appointment is illegal. On Monday morning she could refuse to vacate what she claims is her office and will have to be escorted out. Mr. Cordray and Democrats will portray her and Mr. Cordray as heroes of “the resistance,” the better to raise his name recognition as he runs for Governor of Ohio next year.

The Trump Administration is destined to prevail as a matter of law. But the episode shows that hostility to Mr. Trump is causing his opponents to violate the rule of law themselves. Democrats created an executive-branch agency insulated from Congressional appropriations and presidential control, and now they claim to be able to run it like a branch of government unto itself with a self-sustaining directorship. This is a perversion of constitutional government that the President is right to resist and the courts should reject.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/richard-cordrays-political-stunt-1511752623


CFPB is one of the worst outgrowths of the American administrative state that clearly violates the Constitution and laws already on the books. Funny to see the Democrats complete disregard for how the law is supposed to operate.

Any thoughts?
Member
Posts: 65,877
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
Nov 27 2017 09:22am
yeah, what i have in my very news;

"Trump is targeting the Dodd-Frank Act, a set of laws introduced in 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis by Barack Obama."
&
"the CFPB is one of the entity that has worked best. It has provided essential protection to the weakest Americans."


=> fuck the poors, marechal trump 2024
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Nov 27 2017 09:38am
Cfpb is terrible, helps millions of consumers gain back billions of dollars they been screwed out of by businesses and banks

What we need is a bureau that ensure consumers have no recourse against shady business practices, false advertising and businesses refusing to provide products and services that consumers have paid for
Member
Posts: 9,374
Joined: Mar 16 2008
Gold: 3,260.00
Nov 27 2017 09:56am
Quote (Saucisson6000 @ Nov 27 2017 10:22am)
yeah, what i have in my very news;

"Trump is targeting the Dodd-Frank Act, a set of laws introduced in 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis by Barack Obama."
&
"the CFPB is one of the entity that has worked best. It has provided essential protection to the weakest Americans."


=> fuck the poors, marechal trump 2024


I am all for consumer protection but the CFPB blatantly violates the laws of the land.

1 - Not accountable to Congress or Executive Branch
2 - Not funded by Congressional budget

If it was accountable and budgeted as required by law then I think it might have a place in the government.

Quote (duffman316 @ Nov 27 2017 10:38am)
Cfpb is terrible, helps millions of consumers gain back billions of dollars they been screwed out of by businesses and banks

What we need is a bureau that ensure consumers have no recourse against shady business practices, false advertising and businesses refusing to provide products and services that consumers have paid for


If only the CFPB wasn't violating laws that are already on the books. I am all for consumer protection - just not at the expense of the Constitution and other laws that precede it.

This post was edited by murder567 on Nov 27 2017 09:57am
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Nov 27 2017 10:08am
Quote (murder567 @ Nov 27 2017 10:56am)
I am all for consumer protection but the CFPB blatantly violates the laws of the land.

1 - Not accountable to Congress or Executive Branch
2 - Not funded by Congressional budget

If it was accountable and budgeted as required by law then I think it might have a place in the government.



If only the CFPB wasn't violating laws that are already on the books. I am all for consumer protection - just not at the expense of the Constitution and other laws that precede it.


what is the point of having an organization to protect consumers if it's subjected to the control of a congress and executive branch that has been bought and sold to corporate america? might as well skip the middleman in congress and just have a board composed of representatives of companies like wells fargo control the cfpb so we can avoid stories like this https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-fines-wells-fargo-100-million-widespread-illegal-practice-secretly-opening-unauthorized-accounts/

This post was edited by duffman316 on Nov 27 2017 10:09am
Member
Posts: 9,374
Joined: Mar 16 2008
Gold: 3,260.00
Nov 27 2017 10:12am
Quote (duffman316 @ Nov 27 2017 11:08am)
what is the point of having an organization to protect consumers if it's subjected to the control of a congress and executive branch that has been bought and sold to corporate america? might as well skip the middleman in congress and just have a board composed of companies like wells fargo control the cfpb so we can avoid stories like this https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-fines-wells-fargo-100-million-widespread-illegal-practice-secretly-opening-unauthorized-accounts/


That's just how the government is supposed to operate per the Constitution. Congress can create agencies who's functions are executed by the executive branch. Congress is required to fund all agencies through the yearly budget, not take money directly out of the FED with no oversight.

----

All else aside, Cordray's pathetic attempt at "resistance" is just that - pathetic. Dodd-Frank clearly states that the Deputy Director will serve as acting Director when/if the Director is not present or available. The Director was present and available on Friday and he quit! There is currently no Director of the CFPB, so according the Federal Vacancies Act, the President may appoint one for the interim.

/e

I think Wells Fargo should have faced even worse fines. I think Equifax should get the death sentence. We already have laws in place to deal with these things, we just need to actually enforce them!

This post was edited by murder567 on Nov 27 2017 10:13am
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Nov 27 2017 10:22am
Quote (murder567 @ Nov 27 2017 11:12am)
That's just how the government is supposed to operate per the Constitution. Congress can create agencies who's functions are executed by the executive branch. Congress is required to fund all agencies through the yearly budget, not take money directly out of the FED with no oversight.

----

All else aside, Cordray's pathetic attempt at "resistance" is just that - pathetic. Dodd-Frank clearly states that the Deputy Director will serve as acting Director when/if the Director is not present or available. The Director was present and available on Friday and he quit! There is currently no Director of the CFPB, so according the Federal Vacancies Act, the President may appoint one for the interim.

/e

I think Wells Fargo should have faced even worse fines. I think Equifax should get the death sentence. We already have laws in place to deal with these things, we just need to actually enforce them!


i'm not commenting on the cordray story but rather the necessity of the cfpb's independence from partisan politics
who is going to enforce these laws - when was the last time you saw politicians bite the hand that funds their political campaigns ? the whole push to scrap the cfpb is driven by people who want to sweep these illegal business practices back under the rug and it's sold to people who don't know any better under the guise of unconstitutionality
Member
Posts: 9,374
Joined: Mar 16 2008
Gold: 3,260.00
Nov 27 2017 10:26am
Quote (duffman316 @ Nov 27 2017 11:22am)
i'm not commenting on the cordray story but rather the necessity of the cfpb's independence from partisan politics
who is going to enforce these laws - when was the last time you saw politicians bite the hand that funds their political campaigns ? the whole push to scrap the cfpb is driven by people who want to sweep these illegal business practices back under the rug and it's sold to people who don't know any better under the guise of unconstitutionality


We have a broken system for holding criminal companies accountable, no doubt about that. However, I don't believe we should just throw the Constitution away in the name of consumer protection.

The fact of the matter is the CFPB does violate the Constitution and other laws. I think any law that violates the Constitution should be scrapped. I think any company that commits a crime should be punished to the full extent of the law - especially when it is a huge fuck you to consumers such as the Wells Fargo fiasco and the Equifax breach. I think any politician who goes soft on their donors should be voted out immediately.

We have legal recourse but people don't care enough to do anything about it. That doesn't mean we should ignore the Constitution just to spite businesses.
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Nov 27 2017 10:38am
Quote (murder567 @ Nov 27 2017 11:26am)
We have a broken system for holding criminal companies accountable, no doubt about that. However, I don't believe we should just throw the Constitution away in the name of consumer protection.

The fact of the matter is the CFPB does violate the Constitution and other laws. I think any law that violates the Constitution should be scrapped. I think any company that commits a crime should be punished to the full extent of the law - especially when it is a huge fuck you to consumers such as the Wells Fargo fiasco and the Equifax breach. I think any politician who goes soft on their donors should be voted out immediately.

We have legal recourse but people don't care enough to do anything about it. That doesn't mean we should ignore the Constitution just to spite businesses.


some constitutional violations are necessary to protect a politically apathetic population
would you also support abolishing the fed (it's existence is also unconstitutional is it not?) and passing over control of printing money and managing interest rates to politicians?

This post was edited by duffman316 on Nov 27 2017 10:39am
Member
Posts: 9,374
Joined: Mar 16 2008
Gold: 3,260.00
Nov 27 2017 10:49am
Quote (duffman316 @ Nov 27 2017 11:38am)
some constitutional violations are necessary to protect a politically apathetic population
would you also support abolishing the fed (it's existence is also unconstitutional is it not?) and passing over control of printing money and managing interest rates to politicians?


I just can't agree with that. Completely antithetical to my views of democracy. We the people get the leaders we deserve, unfortunately.

The FED is a really tricky problem and the more I learn/wrap my head around its existence and function, the more I am content to just let it be despite its shortcomings (legally and effectively). It seems to be effective for the most part at managing interest rates and maintaining full employment but it does fail miserably as a regulator of the industry. At this point it is so essential to both the US and the global economies that there isn't a feasible way to abolish it even if I wanted to - which I don't think I do. Interesting comparison of CFPB and FED, I never really thought about it that way.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll