Replies to post #763197 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[EternalPatience]

A chatGPT converted Non Legalese language of the post (this is what CHAT GPT gave me)

1. The question is whether the Plaintiffs should be given a court order that forces the FHFA and the Treasury to cancel the Treasury's nearly $300 billion priority for payment, because the Plaintiffs believe that the rule that allowed the President to be removed from office in an unconstitutional way stopped a previous Presidential Administration from making financial changes that could have included canceling this priority.

2. The question is whether the claims the Plaintiffs recently added under the Appropriations Clause are blocked due to either being outside the scope of the limited directions given to the lower court or because they were filed after the time limit set by the law. If they are not blocked, the next issue is whether the way Congress set up the funding system for the FHFA, which involves collecting money from regulated entities, follows the rules of the Appropriations Clause. Additionally, it needs to be considered whether any violation of this rule could be used as a reason to cancel the Third Amendment. This is important because the money that the Treasury provided to the Enterprises and the money the Enterprises paid to the Treasury didn't come from the funding system that is being challenged as unconstitutional.