Replies to post #741014 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

THIS IS GREAT! "An expansive executive agency
insulated (no, double-insulated) from Congress’s purse
strings, expressly exempt from budgetary review, and
headed by a single Director removable at the Presi-
dent’s pleasure is the epitome of the unification of the
purse and the sword in the executive—an abomination
the Framers warned “would destroy that division of
powers on which political liberty is founded.” 2 THE
WORKS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 61 (Henry Cabot
Lodge ed., 1904)."

"...appropriations are required to meet the Framers’ salu-

tary aims of separating and checking powers and pre-
serving accountability to the people. The Act itself tac-
itly admits such a distinction in its decree that “[f]unds
obtained by or transferred to the Bureau Fund shall not
be construed to be . . . appropriated monies.” 12
U.S.C. § 5497(c)(2). We take Congress at its word.
But that is the rub."

"We cannot sum up better than Judge Jones did:

[T]he [Bureau]’s argument for upholding its funding

mechanism admits no limiting principle. Indeed, if

the [Bureau]’s funding mechanism is constitutional, then what would stop Congress from similarly di-

vorcing other agencies from the hurly burly of the ap-

propriations process? . . . [T]he general threat
to the Constitution’s separation of powers and the
particular threat to Congress’s supremacy over fiscal
matters are obvious. Congress may no more law-
fully chip away at its own obligation to regularly ap-
propriate money than it may abdicate that obligation
entirely. If the [Bureau]’s funding mechanism sur-
vives this litigation, the camel’s nose is in the tent.
When conditions are right, the rest will follow.
All Am. Check Cashing, 33 F.4th at 241 (Jones, J., con-
curring). The Bureau’s funding apparatus cannot be
reconciled with the Appropriations Clause and the
clause’s underpinning, the constitutional separation of
powers.

---------------
Looks like Judge Jones will no longer be receiving Holiday Greetings from Elizabeth Warren and Elena Kagan ;-) !

[clarencebeaks21]

Robert, yes, HERA did include language to that effect in its section 1106(f)(2) “Assessments,” which amended the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4516), section 1316.

‘‘(f) TREATMENT OF ASSESSMENTS.—

(…)

‘‘(2) NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDS.—The amounts received by the Director from any assessment under this section shall not be construed to be Government or public funds or appropriated money.”