CFPB Appropriates Its Own Funds<\/h2>\n
Any textualist or originalist should view \u200dthe CFPB\u2019s funding scheme as \u200danti-constitutional. Per statute, it effectively funds itself by drawing\u200c monies from the Federal \u200dReserve, another \u2062agency \u200dCongress insulated from ordinary \u2064democratic accountability. <\/p>\n
Agency defenders argue that\u200d Congress\u2019s open-ended mandate<\/a> for self-appropriation adheres\u200d to\u200d constitutional requirements. As noted by Fifth Circuit\u2064 Court of Appeals Judge Cory T. Wilson, whose ruling<\/a> the Supreme Court will review, the Consumer Financial Protection Act itself \u201ctacitly admits\u200b such a distinction in its decree that \u2018[f]unds obtained by or transferred to the Bureau \u2064Fund shall not be construed\u200c to be \u2026 appropriated monies.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
Many writers<\/a> (George\u2062 Will<\/a>, \u2062 notably<\/a>) \u200dhave already \u200dexplored the CFPB\u2019s rankly unconstitutional structure<\/a>. In \u2064short, by removing financial regulation from America\u2019s ordinary democratic political process, Congress violated the Constitution. Congress built the agency\u200c with \u200cfar too much insulation\u2062 from presidential scrutiny and other constitutional checks and balances.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
Republicanism vs. Progressivism<\/h2>\n
The controversy over the CFPB dredges up an old debate. The classical liberal, Anglo-American political doctrine is set against the quintessentially continental and anti-founding tendencies of the Progressive\u200d Era<\/a> \u2062 of American\u200c politics. The notions of placing fiscal powers in democratically accountable legislatures, \u200cerecting procedural barriers to resolving legislative questions, and\u200c eschewing \u2063rule-by-bureaucrat \u2063sit squarely within the Anglo-American tradition (the founders\u2019 tradition).\u200c They conflict\u200d with\u200b the Progressive \u200done.<\/p>\n
The processes of taxing and fiscal appropriations are inextricably intertwined. \u200bBy \u2062determining how much tax Washington collects \u2062or\u2062 how \u200bcollected taxes\u200b may be\u2063 spent, these two powers give whoever wields them the same sort of control over the rest of the government.<\/p>\n
The \u200cframers of the \u200dConstitution understood that the \u2064legislature\u2019s fiscal powers can\u200b restrain overeager\u2063 executive\u200b officials. \u200dThey, therefore, conscientiously granted them to\u200b Congress. <\/p>\n
James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 58<\/a> that the \u201cpower over\u200b the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the \u2062immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect\u2064 every\u2063 just and salutary measure.\u201d\u200c Madison noted that the House of Representatives in particular \u200c(the federal government\u2019s most democratic branch, and the \u200cone in which all \u2063tax proposals must begin<\/a>)\u200c retains the power to \u2062\u201crefuse \u2026 the \u200dsupplies requisite for the support of\u2064 government.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
The Power of the Purse in England<\/h2>\n
In the British political system, from which the founders borrowed \u2064much, Parliament regularly used its fiscal powers to \u2063exert control\u2063 over \u2062the king.\u2064 Indeed, much\u2064 of \u2063the political pressure that exploded into \u2064the English\u2062 Civil\u2064 War resulted from\u200d Parliament\u2019s unwillingness \u2062to provide revenue to King\u200c Charles I, \u2063whom many accused\u200c of tyranny. (Parliament\u2019s\u2062 reticence\u200d to fund the crown stemmed largely\u200d from royal \u2064abuses.)<\/p>\n
The havoc of the civil war and the subsequent deficiencies of Charles I\u2019s successors drove \u2062the English \u200dto resolve the outstanding\u2062 political and religious tensions by appointing the \u200dProtestant William of Orange and his English wife, Mary, to the throne. \u200bIn the year they \u2064ascended, 1689, \u2062Parliament passed the \u2064English Bill of Rights. \u2062 <\/p>\n
The document provided<\/a>: \u2062\u201cThat levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretense of\u2064 prerogative, without grant \u2064of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner\u200d than\u2064 the\u2064 same is or shall be granted,\u200d is illegal.\u201d Many scholars portray this \u2062document \u2014 and the civil war itself \u2014 as a reassertion\u200b of anciently held English rights rather than a political innovation.<\/p>\n
With this tradition in mind, reconsider the CFPB.<\/p>\n
CFPB and \u200dthe Progressive Era<\/h2>\n
As argued<\/a> in \u200bReason earlier this year, \u201cDemocrats \u200bconstructed the CFPB as a quintessentially progressive regulatory institution<\/a>: \u2064A partnership of\u200b government and big business, helmed by putatively disinterested\u2062 and de facto unaccountable\u200c bureaucrats.\u201d\u2063 Its structure conforms closely to the philosophies of the\u200b Progressive Era\u2019s largest-looming intellectuals, \u200cincluding \u2063former President\u200d Woodrow Wilson.<\/p>\n
Examining the 28th president\u2019s political\u200c philosophy can illuminate much because\u2063 it clashed sharply with the Constitution. Wilson disliked much<\/a> in \u200dthe United States\u2019 political tradition. American political institutions such \u2064as robust democratic accountability; \u200cindividual\u2063 rights; defined, divided, and decentralized political power; and adversarial branches of government slow the progress \u201cenlightened\u201d \u200cgovernment officials yearn<\/a> to implement. Wilson \u2014 a thoroughly \u200denlightened\u200d official, in \u200dhis own estimation \u2014\u2064 chafed \u2064at these checks.<\/p>\n
To dodge the restraints of the Constitution\u2019s plain meaning, Wilson fathered the notion of the \u201cliving Constitution,\u201d defacing the handiwork of Madison. Nor did Thomas Jefferson\u2019s legacy appeal to the 28th president. \u201cNo doubt,\u201d Wilson wrote<\/a>, \u201ca lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable \u2062rights of the\u2064 individual, and \u200da great deal that \u2062was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has \u200cbeen put forward as fundamental \u200dprinciple.\u201d<\/p>\n
Idealizing European Autocracy<\/h2>\n
Wilson labeled<\/a> public opinion \u201ca clumsy nuisance\u201d that interfered with his cherished rule by experts. In the same essay, \u2062the future president gushed over the administrative successes of European autocrats,\u2062 lamenting democratic America\u2019s corresponding\u200c administrative failures.\u2063 He warned that \u201cpopular sovereignty\u201d \u200cconstituted a principal\u2063 obstacle to the institution of an expert-driven administrative state. \u201cAn individual sovereign \u2026 will\u200b embody that one opinion in one command,\u201d \u200bWilson wrote. \u201cBut this \u200bother \u2063sovereign, the people, will have \u2062a score of differing\u200d opinions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wilson, like many other Progressives, \u200dadmired the efficacy with which\u200c \u201cmodern\u201d European \u2062rulers \u200b\u2014 e.g., Vladimir Lenin and Benito \u200bMussolini \u2014 managed their nations. \u201cI have seen the future and it works,\u201d declared<\/a> Lincoln Steffens after touring Lenin\u2019s infant Soviet\u2064 Union. H.G. Wells\u2064 in 1932 went so far as \u200c to exhort<\/a> the Oxford Young Liberals to become \u201cliberal\u200c fascists\u201d and \u201cenlightened Nazis.\u201d A century on, the technocratic left \u200bstill daydreams about becoming \u201c China for\u2062 a Day<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n
As Wells\u2019 adjectives suggest, these Progressive intellectuals did not yearn for the\u2063 bloodiness of fascist Italy, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Red China. They rather envied those regimes\u2019 perceived ability to impose a totalistic policy agenda without the political and procedural fetters of a \u200dliberal, \u2064democratic republic. \u201cWhy should\u200d Russians have \u200ball the fun remaking a world?\u201d inquired Stuart Chase, in his\u2064 1932 \u2063book, The New\u200c Deal<\/em>.<\/p>\n
Restoring \u2063\u2018Divided and Balanced\u2019 Government<\/h2>\nMadison and his fellow founders would have \u200dobjected strongly. \u201cAn elective \u200ddespotism was not the government we fought for,\u201d the Virginian wrote in Federalist No.\u2063 48<\/a>, \u201cbut one which\u2062 should\u200d not only be founded \u200don free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced\u2026that no one could transcend their\u2064 legal limits, without being effectually checked \u200dand restrained by \u2062the others.\u201d<\/p>\n
The\u2063 CFPB, though created in\u2062 2010, recalls some of the Progressive Era\u2019s least American beliefs. Luckily, unlike many of last century\u2019s Supreme Courts,\u2063 this\u200b one has proved itself willing to faithfully \u200binterpret the \u2062Constitution and to enforce the document\u2019s limitations on executive power.<\/p>\n
It should do so again.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
rnrn <\/p>\n
What are the arguments \u200bmade by textualists and originalists against the CFPB’s self-appropriation funding scheme?<\/h2>\n
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)\u200c is once again facing scrutiny as it appears before the Supreme Court. Two industry groups are \u2064challenging\u200b a 2017 rule that regulates payday lenders, putting the agency’s constitutionality in question. This is not the first time the CFPB’s structure has been challenged. In a\u2062 previous case, \u2063the court confirmed that Congress may\u200d not bar the president\u2063 from firing the agency’s leadership, but now they will consider whether the\u200d CFPB’s funding mechanism violates the Constitution’s appropriations clause.<\/p>\n
The CFPB’s funding scheme is seen as anti-constitutional by \u200ctextualists and originalists. The \u200bagency \u2062effectively funds itself\u2063 by\u2064 drawing money from the Federal Reserve, another agency insulated from democratic accountability.\u2063 Agency defenders \u200cargue that this self-appropriation adheres to constitutional\u2064 requirements, citing the Consumer Financial Protection \u200dAct’s decree that funds obtained by the Bureau Fund shall not be construed as appropriated monies. However,\u200d many writers have already explored the rank<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The CFPB, born from the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, was Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild. With vast powers granted by the Dodd-Frank Act, it wields authority over the financial sector. Its decisions have been seen as arbitrary, acting as a de facto ruler.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2104,"featured_media":2086526,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2086525","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2086525","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2104"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2086525"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2086525\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2086526"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2086525"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2086525"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2086525"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}