Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/30/2025 11:48:18 AM PDT by Angelino97
On Monday, President Donald Trump moved to fire Lisa Cook, a Biden-nominated member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. He moved to fire Cook for “cause,” and that cause is clear enough: According to William Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Cook allegedly committed mortgage fraud by lying about her principal place of residence for purposes of securing more favorable interest rates—and then failed to report her rental income from the properties, to boot.
Trump’s move is the first time a president has ever tried to fire a Fed governor for cause, and Trump’s usual detractors have criticized him for his latest perceived violation of institutional norms. But Trump has acted appropriately; he is fully within his constitutional and statutorily delegated authority to remove Cook—whether for “cause” or not.
Let’s return to first principles.
The modern administrative state operates as a fourth branch of government, unmoored from direct political accountability. Its very existence, to say nothing of its present metastasis, is in irreconcilable tension with the American Founders’ vision of a clearly delineated tripartite separation of powers between Congress, executive branch and judiciary.
Article II of the Constitution vests the entirety of the “executive power” in the hands of the president of the United States. And as Chief Justice William Howard Taft (himself a former president) made clear in Myers v. United States (1926), this includes the power to remove executive branch officers. While the New Deal-era case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) carved out a dubious exception for so-called independent agencies, constitutionalists have long understood Humphrey’s as an aberration in need of reversal.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has been chipping away at this edifice. In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Roberts court held that Congress cannot insulate a lone executive officer—in that case, the director of the bureau—from at-will presidential removal. In Collins v. Yellen (2021), the court extended that logic even further, holding that restrictions on the president’s ability to remove the head of the FHFA are also unconstitutional.
It is true that in Trump v. Wilcox, a case from earlier this year in which the court green-lit Trump’s dismissal of a Biden-nominated member of the National Labor Relations Board, the court did opine that arguments about the legitimacy of for-cause removal provisions for labor board members do not necessarily implicate similar for-cause restrictions for members of the Fed’s Board of Governors. The court’s brief two-page order in Wilcox described the Fed as a “uniquely structured … entity.”
But is it? Or perhaps more precisely—can it legitimately be? Members of the Fed’s Board of Governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They exercise significant policymaking authority, affecting the economy, interest rates and the value of the dollar. That is executive power under any reasonable understanding of the term.
Even more to the point, if the Fed is not part of the executive branch such that the president is able to wield plenary removal power, then where exactly is it? Surely, the Fed is not part of Congress or the judiciary. The Wilcox order opines that the Fed “follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” but this analogy is specious.
The First and Second Banks of the United States didn’t actually serve modern central bank functions. And the Fed, birthed in 1913, was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, the godfather of the modern administrative state. Legally, the Fed is more analogous to the rest of the administrative state.
Ultimately, Trump must be able to fire members of the Fed’s Board of the Governors—or else the Fed is structured in an unconstitutional manner. There is no tenable middle ground here.
What about the relevant authorizing statute? The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which brought the Fed into existence, sets staggered 14-year terms for governors and doesn’t expressly provide for at-will removal.
But it also doesn’t specify what constitutes a legitimate “cause” for a governor’s removal. Congress could have specified that “cause” requires, as Cook’s counsel Abbe Lowell now argues, a Fed governor to first be indicted or convicted of a crime. But Congress didn’t specify that.
“Cause” absent such specification is an inherently subjective criterion. And what could be more legitimate of a cause for removing a governor of the nation’s central bank—which is, among other things, the lender of last resort to the country’s financial institutions—than the alleged defrauding of financial institutions? The allegations raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of the Fed. It is in the national interest to preserve that legitimacy.
Let’s also not forget: Term length does not equal tenure protection. Saying governors serve “for 14 years” is not the same as saying they cannot be removed within that time period. Courts have made this distinction plenty of times before—consider, for instance, the (legitimate) 2017 dismissal of James Comey, who was less than four years into what was to have been a 10-year tenure as FBI director.
The lawsuits will come anyway. So be it. Those fights are worth having. Trump’s first term was plagued by internal sabotage from bureaucrats and agency officers who fancied themselves a coequal branch of government.
It is imperative that Trump’s second term not repeat that tragic mistake. And the first for-cause removal of a sitting Fed governor sends an unmistakable message: The American people, through their elected president, will once again take the reins of government.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Just get het outa here.
If you or I did that we’d ALREADY be in jail
Yes, President Trump Has the Authority to Fire Lisa Cook“
That doesn’t seem to matter when all you have to do is go ruining to a rat DC Judge.
Someone didn’t do “due diligence” before she was even nominated.
The author hit on a point I have been harping on lately.
The Congress has - acting against the Constitution’s design of the only Constitutional branches of government - legislated so many protections against executive interference, oversight or direction of the administrative state, as well as even protections against Congressional control over parts of it (the Fed and the CFPB), so as to carve out an illegitimate INDEPENDENT fourth branch of government.
This was always in the political program of the Fascistic Progressives - rule by the experts. To them, Congress is a messy place for making laws and worse for making regulations it can’t be trusted to get it right, too much politics and special interests get in the way, things are “better” turned over to bodies of “independent experts”. The very heart of the idea cannot be found in the Constitution’s design of the government.
To be Constitutionally correct, every “executive” agency the executive cannot control would require an amendment to the Constitution to authorize it’s existence.
May just be the first time for such a position to be bestowed on the low caliber occupant that is such as to bring such antics to our table.
This won’t be the case to get rid of Humphrey’s Executor because in this case there appears to be cause. Cook doesn’t have a good explanation for the mortgage form problem, so far as we know. Clerical error? Good grief.
Multiple felonies [mortgage fraud on each of several houses; tax evasion for failing to declare rental income] should cut it.
May well have criminal false statements on her government jobs.
Even the charging of them, since they relate to her position [this is not, say, an environmental crime], would be a basis for cause in my estimation.
There could well be over a dozen legitimate felony charges.
If that ain’t “for cause” what is the point of conferring that power on the President?
But it also doesn’t specify what constitutes a legitimate “cause”
Common Sense says a few primary criteria:
1) Violation of a law
2) Seriousness of the law violated.. Misdemeanor? Felony?
3) Relevance of the violation to the duties of the office.
Violating mortgage laws is relevant to a person whose role impacts mortgages. Blowing a Stop Sign, or DUI, is not relevant to mortgages.
Cause is not defined in the statute, leaving it to the courts to define.
The courts? or does the President get deference to the Executive branch to decide?
I know that the overturning of Chevron deference applied to agency rulemaking by bureaucrats, the the President is not a bureaucrat, he IS the Executive branch and everyone else has powers delegated by him. As such, his interpretation should carry weight until such time as the court thinks it's not the right interpretation.
To go there, they would look at where else in the US Code "for cause" terminations were found, and there are common definitions for that, as you pointed out. Here are two recent cases where the Supreme Court ruled both cases in President Trump's favor:
This would suggest that the firing of Lisa Cook for the cause of malfeasance is supported by the Supreme Court's decisions in the firing of both Gwynne Wilcox (NLRB) and Cathy Harris (MSPB), without having to wait for a criminal conviction.
- Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) - 5 USC 1202(d): MSPB members "may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office".
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) - 29 USC 153(a): NLRB Board members may be removed by the President "for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause".
I know that people say it's unprecedented to fire a governor of the FED and it hasn't been done in its 112 year history, but in that time has it ever been discovered that a Fed Governor had two mortgages declaring each property to be their primary residence in order to get favorable interest rates (prima facie evidence of mortgage fraud)?
Do you think the Supreme Court is moving away from Humphrey's Executor and back towards a unitary Executive?
The Constitution grants the power of the Executive in a President AND ONLY a President. What do you think about Congress creating these "independent" agencies inside the executive branch that is effectively beyond the reach of the President? Don't you think that was an encroachment on the separation of powers? The powers inside the executive branch descend downward from the President, not crosswise from the Congress.
-PJ
I don’t get it. He either does or he doesn’t. Why does this have to happen before the issue is even brought up? Legal arguments bring in money to those with law degrees. Perhaps we should vote on it.
Her mortgage payment was probably $200-$300 cheaper per month as a falsely claimed primary. That buys a lot of Big Macs!!
Tax fraud? Lock her up.
According to William Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency,
<><>black Biden nom Cook allegedly committed mortgage fraud
<><>she lied about her “principal place of residence”
<><>by lying, she secured more favorable interest rates
<><>she also failed to report her rental income from the properties.
The problem is the interpretation of Congress inserting an agency inside the Executive branch that Congress labels as "independent" and the constitutionality of that.
Separation of powers would suggest that Congress cannot interfere with the operations of the Executive branch by creating agencies that are loyal to Congress, and not the President. The Constitution vests ALL the power of the Executive branch into ONE President, and ALL authority to the lower agencies are delegated from the President. When Congress creates a so-called "independent" agency inside the Executive branch, it violates the framework that all power is delegated by the President, if the head of the "independent" agency cannot have his delegated powers taken away (i.e., he's fired) due to an act of Congress.
This was taken up in a SCOTUS case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States where SCOTUS ruled that the heads of independent agencies are protected. Over the decades, legal scholars have been drifting away from Humphrey and towards the unitary executive, as evidenced by the recent SCOTUS decisions supporting President Trump's firing of the other "independent board members."
The question now is whether SCOTUS will go the last step and decide if Directors (the head of an independent agency) can also be fired by the president, doing away entirely with Congress-created independent agencies within the Executive branch.
-PJ
I get a laugh every time the eneMedia says Congress legislated the FED to be “independent”.
No, the bankers (aka, banksters) at Jekyll Island, plus people like Senator Aldridge, planned to have bankers run this nation in 1910-1914. The “independence” is a lousy cover story.
* * * FRB is part of the Executive branch, under POTUS’s control. * * *
Right, and the immediate effect was a big reduction of the percentage down payment required. Principal residence is typically 5% for non-first time homebuyers. Investment or rental property mortgage typically require 15-25% down. She also lied about the number of units to get into a lower interest and down payment tier, iirc.
Every day CNBC has a different Dem weasel lawyer saying this was long ago, small ball, but they are sending off body language that they are lying. I though lawyers had to be able to lie better than that.
Another comment - she also wrote in favor of race reparations. So “entitled to other people’s money” led to “entitled to cheat other people” IMO.
If she was tired by Biden she can certainly be fired by Trump.
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.