Decision in this case is the first time in a court in our nations history has held that congress violated the appropriations clause by enacting a statute providing funding. This court suld uphold the cfpbs funding statute because it is fmly grounded in constitutional tt and in historical practic dating back to the founding. The text of the constitution shows that when the frars one to limit Congress Appropriations authority they did expressly. While the frars restricted appropriations for the army to two years, they applied no similar limits on apppriations for any other agency. History conrms that. Since the Founding Congress has consistently funded agencies through standing appropriations that are not timelimited and that provide significant discretion over how much to spen the First Congress did exactly this at the very first agency it created the Customs Service, a the same is true for of t founding era agencies including the post office, the national mint, the Patent Office, revee
Decision in this case is the first time in a court in our nations history has hel that congress violated the appropriations clause by enacting a statute providing funding. This court should uphold the cfpbs funding statute because it is firmly grounded in constitutional text and in historical practice dating back to the founding. The text of the constitution shows that when the framers one to limit Congress Appropriations authority they did so expressly. While the framers restricted appropriationsor the army to two years, they applied no similar limits on appropriations for any other agency. History confirms that. Since the Founding Congress has consistently fundedgencies through standing appropriations that are not timelimited and that provide significant discretion over how much t spend. The First Congress did exactly this at the very first agency it create t customserce, and the same isru for of the founding era agencsncluding the post office, the national mint, the patent office, r
A Public Service along with these other television providers. Giving you a front row seat to democracy. The suprem court heard oral argunt on whether the consumer fincial Protection Bureaus ndg structure is unconstitutional. The case stems from thegencys payday lending role, the sixth rcuit court of appeals previously ruled against it prompting the federal government to appeal e decision to the supreme cot. The justices have through june 2024 to issue a ruling. We will hear argument this morning in case 22 448, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau versus the Community Financial services association. Mr. Cef justice and may it please the courtthe Circuit Decision in this case is the firs tim any court in our nations historyas held that congress vioted the appropriations clause by enacting a statute providing funding. Roviding funding. This court shouldphold the cfpbs funding statute because it is firmly gunded in constitutional text andn historical practice datin back to the founding. T
Decision in this case is the first time i a court in our nations hisry has held that congress violated the appropriationslause by enacting a statute providing funding. This court should uphold the cfpbs funding statute becau it is firmly grounded in constitutional text and in historical practice dating back to the founding. The text of the constitution shows that when the framers one to limit congress apopriations authority they did so expressly. While the framers restricted apopriations for the army to two years, they applied no similar limits on appropriations for any other agency. Hiory confirms that. Since the Founding Congress has consistely funded agencies through standing appropriations that are n timlimited and that provide significant discretion over how much to spend. The First Congress didxactly this at the very first agency it created the Customs Service, and the same i true for of the founding era agencies including the post office, the national mint, the Patent Office, re