:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/65274222/1094227554.jpg.0.jpg)
On Tuesday, President Trump asked the Supreme Court if they could look into the case Selia Law v. CFPB or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The content of the case is whether or not a federal team (or agency) can be led by one director that the President cannot remove under no circumstances. Moreover, this relates to the concept of the powers listed in the Constitution and the type of government it permits (checks and balances system).
“inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" (Vox). Other conservative perspectives indicated that the CFPB cannot stand due to it not representing the "consent of the governed."
This relates to our class discussion/lesson about what the Consitution tells what each branch has power to and uses the checks and balances systems to make sure that each branch has limited power. But by Trump being able to fire the director, does it tip the balance? Sure, the president has the power under the "unitary executive" but what if one person having this much power in one branch is simply too much? Should we break up this large power into smaller parts? I think it would be beneficial, but it would raise the question about the importance of the presidential position and what powers are deemed to be on the lower or higher end of the spectrum.
This relates to our class discussion/lesson about what the Consitution tells what each branch has power to and uses the checks and balances systems to make sure that each branch has limited power. But by Trump being able to fire the director, does it tip the balance? Sure, the president has the power under the "unitary executive" but what if one person having this much power in one branch is simply too much? Should we break up this large power into smaller parts? I think it would be beneficial, but it would raise the question about the importance of the presidential position and what powers are deemed to be on the lower or higher end of the spectrum.
Also, has the CFPB director demonstrated qualities that should make him be removed from the office? I think not. Therefore, in my opinion, I believe that even if Trump wanted to remove this person from office, he would have a hard time since this goes against the law even if he holds all the executive power. This is where the concept of checks and balances or where the judicial branch limits the executive branch's power in order to not create a tyranny of the government.
What should the supreme court do? Do you think that the CFPB should be under one person? Usually, however, many federal agencies have a group of people rather than one person. Is Trump trying to exceed his powers under the executive branch?
5 comments:
The problem with a checks and balances system is that it's designed to keep anyone from running away with power. That's great in theory, but if it's very hard for decisions to be made, decisions aren't going to be made. A single executive can do inordinate amounts of harm if given enough power, as we've seen with monarchs and dictators throughout history, but they can also operate efficiently. So, it depends on the possible damage done by one position of power. Since the CFPB takes an important role in a large aspect of people's lives, oversight would be a good idea. That being said, the president's ability to fire a person is not an oversight, it's more granting another power to another person, who at this point in time may not be the most qualified to hold said power.
President Trump attempting to remove the CFPB director from office is yet another example of Trump trying to establish Republican dominance in governmental positions, such as Congress. In a sense, Trump's scheme to dominate the governmental scene is a way to legally obtain tyrannical power. This is where the Supreme Court reigns, relating to their checks and balances abilities. The Supreme Court should not overturn their decision in the Selia Law v. CFPB, unless Trump has an absolutely convincing argument otherwise. In regards to conservative perspectives on the CFPB representing the consent of the governed, this argument should only be taken into consideration to overturn the decision when and if it gets democratic and public support as well. Otherwise, removing the director of the CFPB would be an irrational and ill-supported action.
Unfortunately, it is my opinion that Mr. President is trying to take more power than what he is permitted to have. I think it's pretty basic knowledge (especially if you're a public official... at least I'm hoping) how the checks and balances system works. I think the whole idea of shared powers is also being ignored by Trump because he has a whole cabinet behind him that are supposed to help him make decisions. From what I understand, Trump is making this decision on his own, disregarding his colleagues who's literal job is to regulate his decisions and like, ya know, help him out?? Also, shouldn't there be a check by another branch/at least one person if he is taking the entirety of the executive branch into his hands when making his decision? This just sounds not... legal...
The role of the CFPB director and the position itself is quite interesting to me because like Natalie said above, there should be checks and balances in theory for running a government. However, there are some places where they would get in the way of making the system more efficient. That being said, in this case with the CFPB director having a higher amount of power within the executive branch and with the President being responsible for the director there really is not that great of a check on this position. Without this check, the position can be used as a position for political power rather than functionality but with the highly reactive atmosphere in the federal government right now, a power push would be met with vocal opposition that would discourage the abuse of executive power. But just to be safe, there should be an emergency check on this executive power just to make sure that the executive power is not abused.
President Trump should only be able to remove the CFPB director based on malfeasance or negligence according to federal law. I do not believe that the president has the ability to dismiss positions without appropriate checks and balances. This founding principle of checks and balances in our constitution prohibits behavior in which they act without the approval of another branch. Thus the supreme court should have the final say in whether or not President Trump is exceeding his presidential authority according to constitutional law. Trump is acting on unjust reasons for removal and therefore needs to be checked by the judicial branch.
Post a Comment