Is Dodd-Frank unconstitutional?

[Whack-a-Mole]

I was reading this article in the Wall Street Journal which is making the case that it is (used the Google link which gets around the WSJ paywall).

Not just making an argument for it…they are apparently bringing this case.

From the article:

…we filed a lawsuit on Thursday asking a federal court to declare that two parts of Dodd-Frank violate a bedrock rule of law: the Constitution’s separation of powers, which the Founders designed specifically to limit the growth of government.

<snip>

Ordinarily, when regulators wield broad power, their discretion is still limited by checks and balances. The Constitution empowers the president and Congress, as well as our courts, to prevent regulators from running amok with excessive, arbitrary or even partisan regulations.

There is a lot more there which I can’t quote for copyright reasons but personally I am not buying their argument.

They may be correct that a given agency is overstepping its bounds which is a legal matter but I am not seeing the constitutional issue here.

Am I missing something?

[Whack-a-Mole]

No opinions on this?

Think this is the first time I have seen that happen. Sign of the Apocalypse?

[waterj2]

I’m not an expert on the matter by any means, but I think I’m going with the point made over at the Lawyers, Guns and Money blog that I don’t see how the logic in this suit wouldn’t also mean that the entire Federal Reserve System is also unconstitutional. I’m sure you could draw some sort of dividing line that would leave the Fed intact but abolish the CFPB, but it seems like that would be the sort of nakedly political maneuvering that’s beneath the paragons of judicial objectivity in the Roberts Court.

[BrainGlutton]

@Whack-a-Mole

No opinions on this?

Without even reading the linked article, I am sure it is wrong, because it comes from the WSJ editorials section.

[Ravenman]

I skimmed the article, but I didn’t see anything there that is unconstitutional. The main complains seems to be funding (Congress doesn’t review the budget annually, but that’s not unconstitutional… just perhaps not a wise use of lawmaking authority), the recess appointment of the head of the agency (not even close to unconstitutional), the head of the agency can only be removed for cause (similar to other agencies, such as the Federal Reserve), and the decisions of the agency cannot be reviewed by a court (which is the most interesting claim, but a quick look at Section 113(h) insures some kind of judicial review, so I’m not clear what the authors are talking about).

So, of the four points of unconstitutionality alleged in the article, one of them could have some meat on the bones but it doesn’t appear so at first glance, and the other three don’t seem to hold any weight whatsoever.

I can only wonder why they even mentioned the three poorly made points: not that I understand the issue very well, but I would have suggested that the authors amplify their comments on why they think the agency is exempt from judicial review, rather than making a rather stupid point about recess appointments.