Is there a legally sound explanation for how the Federal Reserve Board alone is so different from every other agency?
Unelected doesn't mean harmless.
I know why the court is very hesitant to allow the president to control the Fed, it would be disastrous for the US economy, but that is consequentialist reasoning that originalists often, at least publicly, claim to oppose. So instead let us try to look for a legally sound explanation. First we have to consider what Fed does:
It controls monetary policy of the US by enforcing the law Congres sentacted delegating that power just like FTC does for consumer protection.
It regulates finanical institutions, including many banks, bankholding companies, some crypto firms now after GENIUS act, among other things. In Selia law, court swears that fact that CFPB director " promulgates binding rules fleshing out 19 consumer-protection statutes that cover everything from credit cards and car payments to mortgages and student loans" means he wields substancial executive power. Well Fed Board does that too, to a greater extent
It issues enforcement actions, like civil penalties and such.
Now court tries to seperate Fed by saying that it is quasi-private, but even if Fed Banks are, Fed Board is not, it is a fully governmental agency. Then, and more importnatly, court says it is like first and second bank of US. But it is just not. Those were much more like national banks of today, like Chase bank, which means federally chartered banks. They did not do almost anything like the Fed does today.
But even if they did, court makes point, in gun cases, that we should not assume states around time of founding used their full allowed regulatory power in that area, yet the court wants us to think Congress did use its full power to make an independent agency with the national bank. That is how I see it
If someone agrees with the court, is there any legal, grounded reasoning for that view that is not just figleaf behind the real reason for that decision?
Unelected doesn't mean harmless.
I know why the court is very hesitant to allow the president to control the Fed, it would be disastrous for the US economy, but that is consequentialist reasoning that originalists often, at least publicly, claim to oppose. So instead let us try to look for a legally sound explanation. First we have to consider what Fed does:
It controls monetary policy of the US by enforcing the law Congres sentacted delegating that power just like FTC does for consumer protection.
It regulates finanical institutions, including many banks, bankholding companies, some crypto firms now after GENIUS act, among other things. In Selia law, court swears that fact that CFPB director " promulgates binding rules fleshing out 19 consumer-protection statutes that cover everything from credit cards and car payments to mortgages and student loans" means he wields substancial executive power. Well Fed Board does that too, to a greater extent
It issues enforcement actions, like civil penalties and such.
Now court tries to seperate Fed by saying that it is quasi-private, but even if Fed Banks are, Fed Board is not, it is a fully governmental agency. Then, and more importnatly, court says it is like first and second bank of US. But it is just not. Those were much more like national banks of today, like Chase bank, which means federally chartered banks. They did not do almost anything like the Fed does today.
But even if they did, court makes point, in gun cases, that we should not assume states around time of founding used their full allowed regulatory power in that area, yet the court wants us to think Congress did use its full power to make an independent agency with the national bank. That is how I see it
If someone agrees with the court, is there any legal, grounded reasoning for that view that is not just figleaf behind the real reason for that decision?
Is there a legally sound explanation for how the Federal Reserve Board alone is so different from every other agency?
Unelected doesn't mean harmless.
I know why the court is very hesitant to allow the president to control the Fed, it would be disastrous for the US economy, but that is consequentialist reasoning that originalists often, at least publicly, claim to oppose. So instead let us try to look for a legally sound explanation. First we have to consider what Fed does:
It controls monetary policy of the US by enforcing the law Congres sentacted delegating that power just like FTC does for consumer protection.
It regulates finanical institutions, including many banks, bankholding companies, some crypto firms now after GENIUS act, among other things. In Selia law, court swears that fact that CFPB director " promulgates binding rules fleshing out 19 consumer-protection statutes that cover everything from credit cards and car payments to mortgages and student loans" means he wields substancial executive power. Well Fed Board does that too, to a greater extent
It issues enforcement actions, like civil penalties and such.
Now court tries to seperate Fed by saying that it is quasi-private, but even if Fed Banks are, Fed Board is not, it is a fully governmental agency. Then, and more importnatly, court says it is like first and second bank of US. But it is just not. Those were much more like national banks of today, like Chase bank, which means federally chartered banks. They did not do almost anything like the Fed does today.
But even if they did, court makes point, in gun cases, that we should not assume states around time of founding used their full allowed regulatory power in that area, yet the court wants us to think Congress did use its full power to make an independent agency with the national bank. That is how I see it
If someone agrees with the court, is there any legal, grounded reasoning for that view that is not just figleaf behind the real reason for that decision?
0 Comments
0 Shares
51 Views
0 Reviews
