Replies to post #748196 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[The Man With No Name]

ROBERT! I just cited from WV v EPA. The majority opinion. Get it? No? Then go back and read in red again....straight from WV. Collins said all was kosher...within the statute. Once again, you're barking up a tree that doesn't apply.

[Wise Man]

Economic "rights" don't exist. It's economic interests embedded in a stock deposited in our broker accounts. They weren't transferred to the conservator in the Succession provision. You continue to mistake a conservatorship for receivership.
The stock price discounts a claim on future earnings in the case of the common stocks and par value and dividends (suspended) in the JPSs.
Therefore, what the stocks discount today is the $301 billion worth of common equity syphoned off to the Treasury, the $287 billion SPS still outstanding, the dividend suspended, also that they still post $0 EPS every quarterly, currently with Accounting fraud, with the crazy "agreement" to increase the SPS every quarter in the same amount of the Net Worth increase and, finally, that the corrupt plaintiffs are staging phony claims in court that cover up the key statutory provisions (Restriction on Capital distributions, etc) and financial concepts (dividends are received out of legally available funds. None with deficit in the Retained Earnings account all along. The private law firm working for the FHFA: "Mandatory dividends", instead of cumulative dividend. Crazy!)
A clear case of stock price manipulation and rogue officials acting freely.
Very different to your "we don't have economic rights".

[Donotunderstand]

Congress CAN delegate ---- as noted in your post

I do not understand from where you are coming when you say Congress can not delegate its powers to a federal agency to decide major questions of Economic and ....

From the material you cite

The argument is not can Congress do that ----- it can (per the arguments)

The question is -- in a given agency and action situation - did congress so delegate in clear fashion

I get that from the below - copied directly

It is only to say that the agency
seeks to resolve for itself the sort of question normally re-
served for Congress. As a result, we look for clear evidence that the people’s representatives in Congress have actually
afforded the agency the power it claims."


Summary - they (courts) look in major cases to see if Congress did actually afford the agency the power it claims

Now - I think our attorneys argued - or maybe did not - "that the HARM to us and the total vulgarity of nationalizing without compensation" could not have so been delegated ---- I agree. But the court said the language is clear that Congress did so delegate as they created FHFA to be the people or whatever was the crazy ALITO language used to justify outrageous behavior (Alito language was crazy and he himself is borderline "lost" IMO)