Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

it has 2 sides:
1) is 4617F legal
2) and if it is legal, is the 3th amendment thus also legal

False. Question 2 in front of the Supreme Court actually assumes the legality of 4617(f). Its legality never called into question by the Supreme Court, otherwise Question 2 would have been moot.

The Collins plaintiffs never asked for 4617(f) to be overturned anyway (in fact, their Supreme Court brief also assumes the legality of 4617(f)!), and the Fifth Circuit en banc panel didn't address its legality either. The 9-7 majority on the APA claims also assumed 4617(f) is legal when they said that the NWS was ultra vires.

Recall that on page 29 of the Free Enterprise Fund majority opinion, the Supreme Court majority declined to strike down any of the "number of statutory provisions that, working together, produce a constitutional violation" other than the removal clause, even though Sarbanes-Oxley doesn't have a severability clause:

It is true that the language providing for good-cause removal is only one of a number of statutory provisions that, working together, produce a constitutional violation.In theory, perhaps, the Court might blue-pencil a suffi­cient number of the Board’s responsibilities so that its members would no longer be “Officers of the United States.” Or we could restrict the Board’s enforcement powers, so that it would be a purely recommendatory panel. Or the Board members could in future be made removable by the President, for good cause or at will. But such editorial freedom—far more extensive than our hold­ing today—belongs to the Legislature, not the Judiciary.Congress of course remains free to pursue any of these options going forward.

So once again, if 4512(b)(2) in HERA is struck down then Supreme Court precedent dictates that the rest of HERA will remain intact. Including 4617(f).

Any crusade against 4617(f) itself really needs to take a different form than anonymous message board posts. A new lawsuit would be ideal.

(spoiler alert it's not, as their statute forbids to give away stuff)

That has nothing to do with the legality of 4617(f). It only has to do with whether or not the NWS was ultra vires and thus if 4617(f) "precludes judicial invalidation of the Third Amendment".