Replies to post #796814 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[clarencebeaks21]

SCOTUS held that the restriction on the President’s power to remove the FHFA Director at 12 USC 4512(b)(2)—commonly referred to as the Removal Clause—violated the constitution. SCOTUS simply severed that offending clause, and let the remainder of HERA stand. So the rest of HERA remains valid law.

See Collins v Yellen pp. 17-36.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-422_k537.pdf

[Barron4664]

Come on man! How do you think Mark Calabria got his job when he did? The Supreme Court found the “for cause” requirement for the POTUS to remove the FHFA Director unconstitutional. The Supremes used a scalpel to remove that clause and keep the rest of HERA instead of a bulldozer to get rid of HERA. That enabled Trump to can Mel Watt and install Mark Calabria the cat man. I think that was a lousy decision. They should have nullified all the decisions done up to that point by unconstitutional single directors and sent HERA back to the drawing board at Congress. Congress should have required an independent commission be created and appointed conservator of a GSE. Imagine if the Commission had to vote on accepting Treasury’s corrupt terms and conditions for its purchase agreements? It would be like just about every other independent agency and would only have needed to be independent when acting as a Conservator.

[jcromeenes]

I don't think that happened so it can't be cited but I sure could site it as undesirable for shareholders!!! lol

[JOoa0ky]

Correct. Only the "removal clause" was unconstitutional. The rest of HERA remains intact.

Barron is wrong.