# Is Elizabeth Warren's signature achievement (the CFPB) unconstitutional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 22, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154 "2019-10-22T20:23:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/1 "2019-10-22T20:23:14Z")
[This article, “The Supreme Court Is Poised to Strike Down a Major Obama-Era Agency”](https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-supreme-court-is-poised-to-strike-down-a-major-obama-era-agency/), does a pretty good job of outlining the constitutional case against the CFPB: > [@](#): > > The CFPB is the most independent of independent agencies, with power to make rules, enforce them, adjudicate violations in its own administrative hearings, and punish wrongdoers. And yet a single director heads the agency, one who can be removed only “for cause” — malfeasance rather than, say, a change in presidential policy priorities. The CFPB doesn’t even need Congress to approve its budget, because its funding requests are rubber-stamped by another agency insulated from political control: the Federal Reserve. The CFPB has regulatory authority over 19 federal consumer-protection laws. This concentration of power in the hands of a single, unelected, unaccountable official is unprecedented and cannot be squared with the Constitution’s structure, or with its purpose of protecting individual liberty from government overreach. Does this give any Warren fans here pause / cause for concern, either due to the constitutional implications or her electoral prospects? I imagine that an adverse (for the CFPB) ruling is going to be used as fodder in campaign commercials against Warren. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/2 "2019-10-22T20:25:28Z")
I support the mission of the CFPB, but I generally agree that these are concerning structural issues. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/3 "2019-10-22T20:36:23Z")
That’s “consumer finance protection bureau”, for anyone who doesn’t have all of the governmental acronyms memorized. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/4 "2019-10-22T20:39:40Z")
No. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/5 "2019-10-22T20:55:49Z")
First, tell me why you consider to be her “signature achievement,” then we can say whether that achievement was unconstitutional. Recognize that Warren recommended that the government create a Consumer Financial Protection Board, which would have been a bipartisan board with multiple Senate-confirmed members who would have jointly exercised authority. Warren was a citizen who advocated for such an agency to be created and she failed in this objective because the agency that Congress created did not have this structure. Since this failure was obviously not her “signature achievement,” I’d like to know what you are referring to in your heading before I answer. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/6 "2019-10-22T21:19:53Z")
That the previous decisions will be overturned is a stretch, at best. Even Kavanaugh argues that the CFPB itself is not unconstitutional, only the “for cause” protection for the director. And even that has repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past, notably when FDR fired a FTC commissioner under the same protection. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/7 "2019-10-22T21:24:23Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > First, tell me why you consider to be her “signature achievement,” then we can say whether that achievement was unconstitutional. > > Recognize that Warren recommended that the government create a Consumer Financial Protection Board, which would have been a bipartisan board with multiple Senate-confirmed members who would have jointly exercised authority. Warren was a citizen who advocated for such an agency to be created and she failed in this objective because the agency that Congress created did not have this structure. Since this failure was obviously not her “signature achievement,” I’d like to know what you are referring to in your heading before I answer. Seems like a stupid quibble to me: > [@The New York Times](#): > > [In a remarkable confrontation, Biden repeatedly told Warren, “I got you votes” after **she spoke about opening the CFPB, one of her signature achievements.** > > “I am deeply grateful to President Obama,” Warren replied, “who fought so hard to make sure that agency was passed into law.”]([https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1184306722883719168](https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1184306722883719168)) (emphasis mine) Also, from the [NYT - Joe Biden Stresses His Part in Elizabeth Warren’s Signature Accomplishment](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/politics/biden-warren-debate.html) [The Intercept - JOE BIDEN, IN STUMBLING DEBATE PERFORMANCE, CLAIMS CREDIT FOR ELIZABETH WARREN’S SIGNATURE ACHIEVEMENT](https://theintercept.com/2019/10/16/joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-democratic-debate/) [Mother Jones - Biden Snaps At Warren: My Help Secured Your Signature Legislative Achievement](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/10/biden-snaps-at-warren-my-help-secured-your-signature-legislative-achievement/) ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/8 "2019-10-22T21:44:16Z")
You started this thread to quibble. I want to make sure I know what we are quibbling about. Also, I asked you why you considered this her signature achievement. You linked to other people rather than explaining yourself. That doesn’t answer my question. In my opinion, her signature achievement thus far has been starting up the CFPB as its interim head. She exercised her duties commendably. She did so in a role where she served at the President’s pleasure, so the constitutional concerns raised by the lawsuit concerning the CFPB’s structure were not implicated by her service in that role. So the answer to your question is “no,” there is nothing unconstitutional about her signature achievement. If you are going to suggest that any purported constitutional defect in the agency’s structure is due to a fault in her recommendations, you are ignorant of what she recommended. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/9 "2019-10-22T22:05:36Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > You started this thread to quibble. I want to make sure I know what we are quibbling about. … Then you should have read the title. It’s made clear there. > [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > … Also, I asked you why you considered this her signature achievement. You linked to other people rather than explaining yourself. That doesn’t answer my question. … I linked to other people to show that it’s a common perception. I personally consider it her signature achievement because I don’t think she’s accomplished anything else worth the label in her whole life. She, no shit, lists the CFPB as one of her children on Twitter: > [@@ewarren](#): > > [U.S. Senator, former teacher, and candidate for president. Wife, mom (Amelia, Alex, Bailey, @CFPB), grandmother, and Okie. She/her. Official campaign account.](https://twitter.com/ewarren) > [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > … If you are going to suggest that any purported constitutional defect in the agency’s structure is due to a fault in her recommendations, you are ignorant of what she recommended. You’ve alluded to this twice and haven’t provided a source either time. Do you have a cite for Elizabeth Warren’s recommendation “that the government create a Consumer Financial Protection Board, which would have been a bipartisan board with multiple Senate-confirmed members who would have jointly exercised authority”? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/10 "2019-10-22T22:08:35Z")
Let’s remember FDR proposed many programs that were later determined to be unconstitutional. That’s what the courts are for, to help us figure out what can and cannot be done consistent with the Constitution. As far as I know, there was no dishonesty or asking for foreign assistance. Warren is not on my short list for the nomination, but even if she was, her involvement with this agency seems like a good accomplishment, even if the Court later strikes it down. There’s no scandal here. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/11 "2019-10-22T23:44:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Then you should have read the title. It’s made clear there. > I linked to other people to show that it’s a common perception. I personally consider it her signature achievement because I don’t think she’s accomplished anything else worth the label in her whole life. She, no shit, lists the CFPB as one of her children on Twitter: > > You’ve alluded to this twice and haven’t provided a source either time. Do you have a cite for Elizabeth Warren’s recommendation “that the government create a Consumer Financial Protection Board, which would have been a bipartisan board with multiple Senate-confirmed members who would have jointly exercised authority”? I don’t have the time or interest to be your researcher. Can you support the claim that the constitutionalyl suspect structure of the CFPB is Warren’s greatest legislative accomplishment? Please note that she was not a legislator when the Dodd-Frank Act was adopted. ---
**Author:** ![Yankees\_1996\_Champs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Yankees\_1996\_Champs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yankees_1996_Champs)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/12 "2019-10-22T23:51:34Z")
We need a consumer finance prevention board. That is her signature issue. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/13 "2019-10-22T23:55:00Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > I don’t have the time or interest to be your researcher. Can you support the claim that the constitutionalyl suspect structure of the CFPB is Warren’s greatest legislative accomplishment? Please note that she was not a legislator when the Dodd-Frank Act was adopted. Ok, what do you think is Warren’s signature achievement? ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/14 "2019-10-23T00:08:21Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Ok, what do you think is Warren’s signature achievement? I don’t believe that is relevant to Mr. Ditka’s OP. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/15 "2019-10-23T00:17:13Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > I don’t believe that is relevant to Mr. Ditka’s OP. Neither do I but, boy oh boy, does Tired and Cranky ever think it is. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/16 "2019-10-23T00:27:27Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Neither do I but, boy oh boy, does Tired and Cranky ever think it is. Nope. My opinion of Sen. Warren’s legislative accomplishments are completely irrelevant. I am asking about HurricanDitka’s opinions because it is necessary to understand his ambiguous, poorly defined question. We can’t begin to answer the OP until HurricanDitka explains his question clearly. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/17 "2019-10-23T00:39:14Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > Nope. My opinion of Sen. Warren’s legislative accomplishments are completely irrelevant. I am asking about HurricanDitka’s opinions because it is necessary to understand his ambiguous, poorly defined question. We can’t begin to answer the OP until HurricanDitka explains his question clearly. I’m sorry but it is you in the poorly defined category. Ditka’s question is quite clear and you have latched on to his description as a “signature achievement” as if it matters. The CFBP is a major part of Warren’s rise to prominence and you are making inane nitpicks. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/18 "2019-10-23T00:51:01Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I imagine that an adverse (for the CFPB) ruling is going to be used as fodder in campaign commercials against Warren. Actually, after thinking about this for a bit, if the Supreme Court eliminated an agency designed to keep the billionaires who run banks from taking homes away from struggling Americans because of fraudulent mortgages, that would be a literal gift to Warren’s campaign. I’m not particularly a fan of Warren, but you’re getting this totally wrong. This could win her the election. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/19 "2019-10-23T00:51:07Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Neither do I but, boy oh boy, does Tired and Cranky ever think it is. > > Ditka’s question is quite clear and you have latched on to his description as a “signature achievement” as if it matters. The CFBP is a major part of Warren’s rise to prominence and you are making inane nitpicks. The phrase "Warren’s signature achievement’ is part of HD’s OP. That makes his definition, what he thinks it means, relevant from square one, before anyone including Tired and Cranky can respond on point. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154/20 "2019-10-23T01:06:17Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > The phrase "Warren’s signature achievement’ is part of HD’s OP. That makes his definition, what he thinks it means, relevant from square one, before anyone including Tired and Cranky can respond on point. No, it is not relevant because everyone here knows that it is an extremely important part of her rise in the Dem party. Whether it is “signature” or not is ridiculous pedantry. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-elizabeth-warrens-signature-achievement-the-cfpb-unconstitutional/842154.md?page=2)