When President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law nearly two years ago, he stated that "our financial system only works—our market is only free—when there are clear rules and basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excess, that ensure that it is more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system."
We completely agree. Which is why we filed a lawsuit on Thursday asking a federal court to declare that two parts of Dodd-Frank violate a bedrock rule of law: the Constitution's separation of powers, which the Founders designed specifically to limit the growth of government. ...
One of us is chairman and CEO of a small community bank in Texas that has been investing in its community for over a century. The other is a former White House counsel who has witnessed firsthand how commitment to the rule of law promotes economic growth.
Of course, the government will respond that we are "against consumers" or that we oppose "financial stability." And of course that's false. Along with the other plaintiffs in our case, the 60 Plus Association and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, we are taking a stand because we know that the surest protection for consumers and financial stability is the rule of law, beginning with the Constitution.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
2 comments:
there is no question about this. it is unconstitutional.
Every piece of legislation that Obama has signed since becoming President will become null and void after it is realized he did not meet the requirements of being President (birth). When that happens is when the US economy will collaps.
Post a Comment