Democrats Refuse To Even Talk To the American People Anymore
From SEAL Team Six to KY-4: Ed Gallrein’s Mission to Defeat Thomas Massie
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 320: What the Old Testament Says About Food
Nick Kristallnacht
Nicki Minaj, Amber Rose, and The Supremes Are Liberators for Black Voters
Between Ben-Gurion and Bishop Benjamin
Fatherless Boys and the Invisible World of Misguided Girls
Let Us Not Underestimate the Degree of Moral Decline in America
'The Letter Kills, but the Spirit Gives Life': Procedure, Moral Fragments and...
RINO Sen. Bill Cassidy Loses Historic Senate Primary Race
New Poll Projects Tight Oregon Governor's Race
Driver Rams Pedestrians in Modena, Italy; Eight Injured in Suspected Terror Attack
U.S. Secret Service Seized 14 Skimmers, Stopped $14.5M of Fraud in Houston Area
McMorrow Pushed Water Affordability While Racking Up $3,000 Unpaid Utility Tab at Million-...
USDA SNAP Data Integrity Team Finds About $3B of Fraud Across 20+ States
OPINION

The Constitution-Flouting, Problematic Bureau

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
 The Constitution-Flouting, Problematic Bureau

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been called a lot of things. President Obama called it “a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders.” House Speaker Paul Ryan said it “supposedly exists to protect you, but instead it tries to micromanage your everyday life.”

Advertisement

On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit called it something else: Unconstitutional.

That’s right. The federal court ruled that one of the hallmark accomplishments of the Obama administration’s last eight years does not pass constitutional muster.

Passed as part of the sweeping Dodd-Frank Act in 2010 and instituted in 2011, the CFPB was designed to be a regulatory body that, autonomous of both the executive and legislative branches, would have independent power to regulate large swaths of the financial services industry.

But as the court ruled on Tuesday, this independence was a bridge too far. The decision reads like a civics textbook, with clear explications of constitutional theory and no less than four references to the Federalist Papers. In his opinion for the court, Judge Kavanaugh writes that “The U.S. Government’s executive power to enforce federal law against private citizens – for example, to bring criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement actions – is essential to societal order and progress, but simultaneously a grave threat to individual liberty.” This threat to liberty, therefore, must be checked and balanced by countervailing constitutional or statutory forces. In the case of the CFPB, neither exists as an effective check.

The power of government agencies has traditionally been checked either by the president himself or commissioners and/or board members, but the CFPB’s director answers to neither. Judge Kavanagh writes, “the Director enjoys more unilateral authority than any other officer in any of the three branches of the U.S. Government, other than the President.” This unprecedented power poses a serious threat to constitutional order and individual liberty.

Advertisement

A year ago my organization, Consumers’ Research, filed an amicus brief in a case challenging the constitutional authority of the CFPB. We emphasized that the CFPB was unconstitutional because it exists independent of the congressional appropriations process. Tuesday’s decision doesn’t reject that argument, but neither does it fully embrace it. Judge Kavanaugh suggested that Congress might alter the CFPB’s appropriations cycle, and said that this problematic feature of the CFPB’s structure is “at most just ‘extra icing on’ an unconstitutional ‘cake already frosted.”

If Congress wants to make the CFPB sufficiently accountable, it can take pages from other agencies. First, it should be restructured, replacing the position of Director with a 5-person bipartisan commission similar to other agencies of the same stature. Supporters like President Obama and Senator Warren revere this lack of accountability as a feature of the CFPB, not a bug that needs correcting. (Yet Warren herself originally proposed the CFPB as a five-member commission, modeled after the Consumer Product Safety Commission.)

Congress also needs to set limits on the CFPB’s power and discretion. The CFPB has sadly lived up to its critics' worst fears in the five years it has existed, becoming the poster child for federal overreach. It has overstepped its bounds, for example, by expanding into the regulation of the automotive loan industry, a purview it was explicitly denied in Dodd-Frank. The absence of congressional control over appropriations for its budget and standard financial oversight has led to cost overruns that are obscene even by Washington standards. Their new offices, originally projected to cost $55 million have currently cost over $215 million and are still incomplete.

Advertisement

Finally, Congress needs to force the CFPB to listen. To date, the CFPB’s heretofore unique status outside both executive and legislative authority bred an arrogance that is reflected both in their mission overreach and overbearing attitude.

Dodd-Frank gave the CFPB an unprecedented mandate to operate without Congressional oversight. This lack of accountability has allowed the agency to stray from its mission and openly flout attempts to oversee its operations. This week’s ruling was an important first step in reining in the CFPB, but more work must be done to protect the American consumer and preserve accountability in Washington, DC.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement