Posted on 11/29/2018 3:17:47 PM PST by jazusamo
The banking and financial sectors are anxiously bracing for firebrand California Rep. Maxine Waters to claim the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee, unsure of what her leadership on the key panel will mean.
Waters, a frequent and vocal critic of President Trump and his administration, is seen as one of Wall Street’s biggest adversaries in Congress thanks in large part to her calls for stricter rules on the nation’s biggest banks and opposition to moves from the White House to roll back financial regulations implemented during the last recession.
She has toned down her rhetoric since the midterm elections but has also called for more oversight, creating somewhat of a guessing game as to what she'll have in store for the industry when Democrats take control of the House in January.
“I don’t know what Chairwoman Waters will be thinking,” Richard Hunt, president of the banking industry trade group the Consumer Bankers Association, told Fox News. “We’re prepared to defend the good work that we’re doing but we’re also willing to work with Chairwoman Waters to make sure we get smart, well-balanced policy.”
Time running out for House GOP to wrap up agendaVideo While the country’s major banks have expressed their willingness to work with Waters, they are all preparing for a very different House Financial Services Committee than the one currently being headed by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.
Since the midterm elections, Waters has made clear that one of her priorities will be putting a halt to the Trump administration and Republicans’ moves to deregulate the banking industry.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“firebrand California Rep. Maxine Waters to claim the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee”
How much will this racist curruptocrat’s old man make on financial deals this time around?
Regardless what FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause power when it scandalously decided Wickard v. Filburn, 1942 in Congress's favor imo, please consider this.
Thomas Jefferson, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices, and a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate most (all?) of what the Financial Services Committee now oversees imo.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Here's some examples of 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state powers that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification feds have stolen from the states, and which the Financial Services Committee is now exercising.
Insurance:
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
Banking:
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
Also, regardless that the feds argue that the Federal Reserve is private, Jefferson's comment about a national bank indicates that the establishment of the Fed by Congress wrongly ignored state sovereignty imo.In fact, using grossly misleading terms like "concept" and "implicit" to describe 10A, here is what was left of that amendment by the time that FDR's activist justices got finished with it.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942
Housing Industries:
"In furtherance of this reasoning, it has been admitted, that under the power to regulate commerce, congress is not limited to the imposition of duties upon imports for the sole purpose of revenue. It may impose retaliatory duties on foreign powers; but these retaliatory duties must be imposed for the regulation of commerce, not for the encouragement of manufactures. The power to regulate manufactures, not having been confided to congress, they have no more right to act upon it, than they have to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws [emphases added], or the road laws, of the states. Congress is empowered to lay taxes for revenue, it is true; but there is no power to encourage, protect, or meddle with manufactures." —Joseph Story, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 2
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
This FN dope who knows nothing about anything is going to control the finance industry in this country, what the hell is wrong with us?
In my view her old man could/will make plenty.
How many contributed to, supported and voted for democrats?
Those that did played a part in handing the committee Chair to Maxie Waters by helping to put democrats in the majority.
“her constituents are already f**cked, so that won’t change.”
They don’t think they’re f*cked. They’re livin’ good. So long as they get their walking around money, they’re good. Mad Max and the rest of the black democrats have their people convinced that if they stray off their plantations,evil, racist white republicans are going to take it all away.
This is how Mad Max and the rest of their “Caucus” operate.
You know who wouldn’t have tolerated this crew?
Malcom X
Low IQ Maxine is going to prove just how stupid she really is......there will be one mismanaged financial disaster after another under her brain-deprived chairmanship.....
Translation.. ee are paying her directly. Cronyism.
Nothing (except flap her big mouth in support of Marxist doctrine) as long as the Senate and WH remain in American hands...
Thanks.
“Chairwoman”! Gasp! What sexist language! Don’t they know that she is actually a “Chair”? How dare they not engage in genderspeak! Men and women no longer exist, you know. Just humanoid units. And it should be obvious to all that Mad Max is clearly just a piece of furniture! Something to be sat on! A place to rest your butt. Just a chair. You can’t be a good a Democrat and think otherwise.
Exactly. We made a big mistake in giving voting rights to people who are too stupid, or lazy, or both, to actually contribute something positive to society. When they realized they could get more and more free stuff simply by voting for pimps, we were doomed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.