tphillips.bsky.social
Banking and administrative law. Independent policy consultant. Future Robinson College. Fellow Roosevelt Institute. Fmr CAP, FDIC, ACUS.
292 posts
2,534 followers
194 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Maybe it's an effort to get around the Heckler v Chaney problem of saying flat out we're not going to enforce this law?
comment in response to
post
Am I reading this right, that they took a press release (we're not enforcing these rules) and made it an interpretive rule?
Or is there something more to this?
comment in response to
post
The GENIUS Act's permissiveness on what is a stablecoin and its insolvency provisions undermine its customer protections. I hope Congress fixes these problems if the bill is ever to become law.
Reach out if you have comments or thoughts!
comment in response to
post
First, the GENIUS Act allows stablecoins for which it is practically impossible for some token holders to receive repayment at par in bankruptcy.
Second, the GENIUS Act doesn't allow federal regulators to place stablecoin issuers into bankruptcy before they become insolvent.
comment in response to
post
I'll skip it this time, but I do have a piece coming out tomorrow about some other parts of the GENIUS Act's bankruptcy provisions that I think you'll enjoy.
comment in response to
post
You have no idea how much I want to "actually" this post and get very pedantic about how FDIC insurance works.
comment in response to
post
Congratulations, Andrew!
comment in response to
post
A really interesting paper on the history of the Comptroller General was presented at the ABA's Adlaw conference this spring. Apparently the Comptroller used to have to approve all government spending in advance, and this post-hoc review was for efficiency. Then the Supreme Court gutted the process.
comment in response to
post
Is that what the word partisan means in the literature? I always took the word to be relating specifically to party.
comment in response to
post
Are you sure "partisanship" is the word you're looking for? EPA was created by a Republican president.
comment in response to
post
Interesting statement by Michael Barr
www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/p...
comment in response to
post
What does he mean, "recommending"? Recommending to who?!
comment in response to
post
To be clear, the first and second banks looked NOTHING like the Fed. They did fundamentally different jobs!
comment in response to
post
Congrats, Ben!
comment in response to
post
Nah, I understand the politics there. I don't understand the politics here.
comment in response to
post
I understand. This whole thing is a mess, and the Supreme Court's separation of powers jurisprudence is to blame. If Congress wants to put both the Copyright Office and CRS in one agency, it should be able to do that without fear that a President will undermine its ability to get straight answers.
comment in response to
post
My understanding is that the appointments clause requires all departments to be headed by a PAS official, but that doesn't make them "executive." Eg GAO. If LOC is a legislative department, Myers wouldn't apply, so it'd be unclear if Trump can remove the Librarian before her term expires, right?
comment in response to
post
Congrats, Petri!
comment in response to
post
I'm not sure 7A is narrower. I think that the public/private distinction is the same for both 7A and Art3, and there's caselaw saying that 7A is no add'l bar on agency adjudication that Art3 doesn't impose.
I just talked w/ @jamesftierney.bsky.social, who chalked it up to coalition politics.
comment in response to
post
Gotcha. He seems to make it clear that the federal gov't has powers limited by the text of the Constitution. But that each power should be read expansively--a view supported by the N&P clause's existence.
All in all, not going to rewrite my draft. 😄
comment in response to
post
OK, case read. I get your point. So, is the correct answer in your exams Congress's taxing and spending powers? Or something else?
comment in response to
post
Alright, time to ignore the other things I had on my calendar today to go read the case and perhaps rewrite a current draft of something...
comment in response to
post
Wait, what? Which part of McC? Banking law has very firmly latched on to Congress's authority to create national banks as being grounded in N&P to effectuate Congress's taxing and spending powers.
What is McC based on, then?
comment in response to
post
I don't think that's right, because the waivers were submitted to Congress in February, and the clock started when they were submitted. (As far as I know...)
comment in response to
post
Because resolutions passed by Congress have to be signed by the President, they won't pass--Trump isn't going to overturn his administration's activities.
But Democrats can still use this agenda-setting power to force the Senate to expend 10 hours debating each measure.