In response to:

Is Dodd-Frank Constitutional?

BairdKirkland Wrote: Apr 23, 2012 3:19 PM

Easy: Article II, Section 2 of the constitution requires the 'Advice and Consent of the Senate...for appointments of...public Ministers and Consuls...and all other Officers of the United States'. The head of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) certainly is either a "Minister, Consul or other Officer" of the US. Furthermore, Article I, Section 8 empowers the Congress '...to pay the Debts and provide for the...general Welfare of the United States'. Clearly, private funding (by the Fed) to the BCFP, while the BCFP enacts Govt business, robs Congress of its ability to "to pay the Debts" to the employees of that bureau. Hence: Dodd Frank is Unconstitutional!

Join the Debate!

All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.

Read Full Story

Is Dodd-Frank Constitutional?

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was intended to "promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end 'too big to fail,' to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes." The law is extraordinarily complex, requiring almost a dozen federal agencies to complete anywhere between 240 to 540 new sets of rules, plus about 145 studies that will affect rulemaking.

There has been much debate over whether the law will accomplish its stated...

Related Tags: Dodd-Frank