Replies to post #617698 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Donotunderstand]

?
who deemed it unconstitutional ??

best I have seen is the en banc said such prohibition was not intended to keep courts away when the actions of the conservator were insane and idiotic (ultra vires if you wish?)

I do not recall any court - in all these years - saying 4617(f) was a violation of the constitution

It may be ---- but I have never seen such ruling - not even with a dozen cases and 20 courts and 35 judges or whatever

(even - I believe - the dissenting (pro equity) opinions in cases we lost never went so far as to say that the provision is unconstitutional as it
applies to "normal - lawful" activities in the course of business - even dumb ass ones )

[ano]

Well yes and no I understand your logic, but it is the independent structure with a single director that makes the FHFA unconstitutional, if it was a multimember board(republican and democrats) the decisions would be somehow balanced now a single director must comply to the president, but since it is independent it lacks authority from the president

Irrespective whether FHFA is independent or not, 4617(f) is unconstitutional.
4617(f) Limitation on court action
Except as provided in this section or at the request of the Director, no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver.

So yes 4617F is unconstitutional as it violates the separation of powers but only because the FHFA is(was) independent with a single director