Monday, 14 July 2025

Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Is Unconstitutional On Its Face

100 Percent Fed Up
Hits: 12

Time to go deep on a topic that doesn’t get much attention…

But that’s what we do here.

We do the heavy lifting and we shine light on things you wouldn’t otherwise hear about.

That’s been our mission since 2015 and let’s just say business is good!

Today’s topic is Elizabeth Warren’s pet Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

ADVERTISEMENT

You might have heard about it, but I bet you have no idea what it is, what is does, or how wildly Unconstitutional it is!

Shout out to Mark Andreesen for originally bringing this to my attention, and I think that’s an excellent place for all of us to start.

Watch this short video to get started as we dive in:

But that’s just barely scratching the surface.

Let’s start with the basics, what is the CFPB, who created it, when, why and how is it functioning today:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a federal agency created in 2010 after the 2008 financial crisis to regulate consumer finance products like credit cards, mortgages, and loans.

  • It was Elizabeth Warren’s idea, and she helped design it under the Obama Administration.

  • It was officially created by the Dodd-Frank Act and later headed by a single Director appointed for a 5-year term.

  • The CFPB is not funded by Congress but directly by the Federal Reserve, meaning Congress can’t control its budget.

    ADVERTISEMENT

  • Its Director cannot be easily removed by the President, limiting Executive oversight.

    • Why it’s likely Unconstitutional:

  • The Constitution gives Congress control over the purse (Article I, Section 9). The CFPB bypasses this by getting funding from the Fed.

  • The President is supposed to control the Executive Branch (Article II), but can’t remove the CFPB Director at will.

  • That means neither elected branch (Congress or President) has real power over the CFPB — a violation of separation of powers.

    • In short: Warren helped create a powerful agency that spends money without Congress and isn’t under the President’s full authority — making it structurally incompatible with the Constitution.

    That’s bad.

    Byron Donalds has introduced a Bill to abolish it:

    More here:

    Senator John Kennedy says it’s operating illegally:

    And now the best part…

    It might get shut down via the same illegal mechanisms Elizabeth Warren originally created.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Oh the irony!

    Now let’s end by asking AI to do a deep analysis for us and tell us if it’s Unconstitutional on its face or not.

    Spoiler alert: both ChatGPT and Grok conclude without a doubt it’s wildly Unconstitutional.

    The truth is folks, when all of this stuff really comes to light and the Deep State actors like Warren are truly exposed, Americans are going to be sickened — even physically — by how illegal all these people were.

    Remember when Q said “They won’t be able to walk the streets”?

    I believe that’s coming.

    These people should NEVER have been allowed to serve in Congress!

    Here’s what ChatGPT told me:

    Analyzing whether Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutional on its face, based solely on a strict textual and structural reading of the U.S. Constitution, requires evaluating the separation of powers, appointments, and appropriations clauses. This analysis assumes no deference to precedent or practical considerations, focusing purely on the Constitution’s language and original structure.

    📜 1. Separation of Powers and Article II (Executive Power)

    ⚖ Argument for Unconstitutionality:

    The Constitution vests executive power in “a President of the United States of America” (Art. II, §1). The CFPB exercises executive powers: it enforces federal consumer protection laws, issues regulations, and imposes penalties. Yet:

  • The CFPB was designed as an independent agency headed by a single director, not subject to presidential removal at will (until Seila Law v. CFPB narrowed that in 2020).

    ADVERTISEMENT

  • This structure dilutes the President’s ability to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Art. II, §3).

  • Unlike traditional executive agencies (e.g. DOJ or Treasury), the CFPB sits outside the direct control of the President, which could violate the unitary executive principle.

    • 🛑 On its face:

    An executive agency that enforces federal law, but is not fully under presidential control, violates the constitutional structure of executive authority. This strongly supports facial unconstitutionality.

    💵 2. Article I, §9, Cl. 7: Appropriations Clause

    “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

    ⚖ Argument for Unconstitutionality:

    Congress has the exclusive power of the purse. The CFPB is not funded through annual congressional appropriations, but through direct draws from the Federal Reserve (which itself is self-funded).

  • The CFPB can unilaterally demand up to 12% of the Fed’s operating budget, without congressional oversight.

  • This evades the constitutional requirement that Congress approve and control all Treasury outlays via legislation.

  • By severing ongoing appropriations from congressional accountability, the CFPB nullifies the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.

    • 🛑 On its face:

    Any federal agency wielding enforcement powers and spending federal money without an appropriations law passed annually by Congress runs afoul of the textual requirement of Article I, §9. That supports facial unconstitutionality.

    🧑‍⚖️ 3. Appointments Clause (Art. II, §2, Cl. 2)

    The President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Officers of the United States…”

    ⚖ Argument for Conditional Constitutionality:

    The CFPB Director is appointed by the President with Senate confirmation, which satisfies the clause. However:

  • The extraordinary power and independence of a single director (as opposed to a multi-member commission) may amplify the constitutional harm when not subject to direct presidential control or Congress’s purse strings.

  • The Director’s long term (5 years) means one President can appoint a Director who remains in power well into a successor’s term, conflicting with the executive accountability principle.

    • ❗Conclusion:

    While not facially unconstitutional by the Appointments Clause alone, when combined with removal protections and funding mechanisms, the structural effect may push it into unconstitutional territory.

    🧠 Structural Constitutionalism Summary

    Strictly read, the Constitution creates a government where:

  • Congress controls the purse

  • The President controls execution of the law

  • Federal agencies are accountable to one or both

    • The CFPB:

  • Spends money without annual appropriations

  • Exercises executive power without presidential control

  • Is insulated from both Congress and the Executive

    • This configuration is a fourth branch of government, unauthorized by the Constitution. In pure structural constitutional terms, this is facially unconstitutional.

    ✅ Conclusion (Strict Constructionist View):

    Elizabeth Warren’s CFPB is unconstitutional on its face, because:

  • It exercises executive power without being accountable to the President — violating Article II.

  • It draws and spends money without congressional appropriation — violating Article I, §9.

  • Its structure creates a government entity outside the three branches — violating the Constitution’s separation of powers.

    • Even without considering historical precedent or court rulings, a strict textual and structural analysis of the Constitution reveals that the CFPB cannot be reconciled with the design of limited, accountable government set forth by the Framers.

    And here’s what Grok told me:

    To analyze whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), as established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 during Elizabeth Warren’s influence, is unconstitutional on its face, we must conduct a strict constitutional law analysis based solely on the text, structure, and original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

    This analysis will avoid reliance on precedent, popular opinion, or subsequent legal developments, focusing instead on first principles derived from the Constitution itself. The question centers on the CFPB’s structure, powers, and funding mechanism, evaluating whether they comport with the Constitution’s allocation of powers, separation of powers, and specific textual provisions.

    I. Background on the CFPB’s Structure

    The CFPB is an independent federal agency created to regulate consumer financial products and services. Key features relevant to this analysis include:

  • Leadership:

  • Headed by a single Director, appointed by the President with Senate confirmation

  • Serves a five-year term

  • Removable by the President only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”

  • Funding:

  • Not through congressional appropriations

  • Funded by a capped amount it requests from the Federal Reserve System (up to 12% of the Fed’s operating expenses, adjusted for inflation)

  • Powers:

  • Rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory authority over consumer financial laws

  • Issues regulations, investigates violations, imposes penalties, and adjudicates disputes

  • Independence:

  • Operates independently of direct congressional or presidential control

  • Insulated by its funding mechanism and the Director’s removal protections

    • We will evaluate these features against the Constitution’s text and structure, focusing on:

  • Separation of powers

  • The Appointments Clause

  • The Appropriations Clause

  • The Vesting Clauses

  • The Necessary and Proper Clause

    • II. Constitutional Analysis

    The Constitution establishes a government of enumerated powers divided among three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—with checks and balances to prevent any branch from usurping the others’ authority.

    The CFPB’s structure raises questions under several constitutional provisions.

    A. Separation of Powers and Vesting Clauses

  • Executive Power and Presidential Control (Article II, Section 1):

  • The Vesting Clause grants the President the entire “executive Power.”

  • The CFPB Director is insulated from removal, limiting the President’s ability to execute the laws.

  • Constitutional Issue:

  • The “for cause” removal protection undermines the President’s authority.

  • Congress cannot shield executive officers from presidential control without violating Article II.

  • Counterargument:

  • Congress may cite the Necessary and Proper Clause.

  • However, restricting executive control is not “proper” if it disrupts separation of powers.

  • Load More

    This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

    View the original article here.


    • Source link

    Search