Competitive Enterprise Institute | 1899 L ST NW Floor 12, Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-331-1010 | Fax: 202-331-0640
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 21, 2012 – The State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, today filed a lawsuit asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to hear its case challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the 60 Plus Association are also joining this community bank as plaintiffs in the same action, requesting the Court to invalidate the law because of the unprecedented, unchecked power it gives the government.
“No other federal agency or commission operates in such a way that one person can essentially determine who gets a home loan, who can get a credit card and who can get a loan for college,” said Jim Purcell, CEO of State National Bank. “Dodd-Frank effectively gives unlimited regulatory power to this so-called Consumer Financial Protection Board, also known as CFPB, with a director who is not accountable to Congress, the President or the Courts. That is simply unconstitutional.”
No Checks and Balances
According to the complaint, there are no effective checks and balances to assure the public of accountability. Most importantly:
“As a whole, Dodd-Frank aggregates the power of all three branches of government in one unelected, unsupervised and unaccountable bureaucrat,” said former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, attorney for the plaintiffs and founder of Boyden Gray & Associates.
"Dodd-Frank is a regulatory tsunami — all-enveloping, hugely destructive, and pretty much unaccountable to whoever unleashed it," said Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel.
While some in the Obama Administration argue that the CFPB will be overseen by the Dodd-Frank Financial Stability Oversight Council, the FSOC's review is practically nonexistent. It can overturn a CFPB regulation under only limited circumstances, and even then only if seven of the 10 FSOC members, including the CFPB Director himself, vote to overturn the CFPB's rule. Most importantly, the Council has no power to oversee the CFPB's enforcement activities, which is the CFPB's preferred method of lawmaking.
Statement by Hans Bader, CEI attorney:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's lack of checks and balances violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. Its Director is like a czar. He is not accountable to anyone, and can't be fired even if voters elect a president with different ideas about how to protect consumers. The usual rule under our Constitution is that the president can fire department heads at will, as the Supreme Court made clear in its Myers v. U.S. decision of 1926, which struck down a contrary law. An exception to this rule covers multimember agencies with a "quasi-legislative" role. But that exception doesn't cover the CFPB, which is headed by a single leader not subject to collegial oversight. The CFPB’s Director is as different from traditional independent agencies as a dictator is from a legislature. Unlike the Chairman of an independent agency like the SEC, who can be outvoted by fellow commissioners if he oversteps his authority, the CFPB’s director is accountable to no one. He is not accountable to the democratically-elected President, unlike cabinet secretaries, who can be removed at will by the President. If the CFPB’s sole director can be given immunity from removal, so, too, could cabinet secretaries, who could be given life tenure, enabling them to thwart the very changes that a newly-elected President was elected to carry out.
Statement by Jim Martin, Chairman of The 60 Plus Association, Inc.:
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act may sound like a badly needed law. In fact, it’s a monster of a statute, larger even than Obamacare, that regulates practically every financial service and institution in the country. And it does this in ways that are unconstitutional. Its Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is headed by a single finance czar who’s unaccountable to the President, to Congress, and in a sense even to the courts. Now Dodd-Frank sounds like it will give seniors reform and protection, but in fact it will restrict financial products such as mortgages and credit, and make them more expensive to boot. At the same time, it undermines the Constitution’s checks on government power. It’s a law that cries out for judicial scrutiny.