69 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b 5 Jul \ on: The Federal Reserve, Custodia Bank, and the battle for Constitution sovereignty bitcoin
The brief underscores the idea that significant executive powers vested in individuals who are not appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause are fundamentally unconstitutional. This argument is particularly compelling with respect to Custodia because it directly challenges the very structure and legitimacy of the Federal Reserve's decision-making process, bypassing the argument of whether or not granting a Master Account is discretionary.
Shots fired. Has no one tried to disarm the Fed this way before? Maybe it'd work with our recently judicially-active supreme court? The brief the quote summarizes was written by Paul Clement who was one of the petitioners in one of the appeals that overturned the Chevron decision.
write
preview
128 sats \ 7 replies \ @Arceris 5 Jul
I think it's the first time anyone has tried it, and Paul Clement is definitely the guy who can get that done, if anyone.
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Jul
Chevron was case law.
Federal Reserve Act was a statute. They have no chance of winning. The headline is misleading and too optimistic
reply
113 sats \ 2 replies \ @Arceris 9 Jul
I'm not sure Custodia's chances are low overall. Though if you're referring to winning on the specific argument that Clement is making, I may agree with you - that is a much more ambitious argument.
Limiting it to the statutory analysis, however, Custodia's case is pretty good. The District Court really tortured the plain language of the statute to give the Federal Reserve the win here - including ignoring a decision in the 10th Circuit that said the opposite (Fourth Corner -- though that decision is not binding due to the nature of how it was decided).
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 9 Jul
That's good news regarding the statute
They should marshal their best arguments
In rejecting their application, the Fed cited the lack of FDIC. Why not buy FDIC to improve your odds?
reply
113 sats \ 0 replies \ @Arceris 9 Jul
The Fed is being disingenuous with the FDIC statements. There are at least 400 banks without FDIC insurance, and FDIC insurance is also entirely unnecessary for a fully reserved bank. The FDIC protects against bank runs in a fractional system, and a fully reserved bank cannot be run, by definition.
https://www.bankingdive.com/news/fed-master-account-list-fdic-insurance-custodia-bank/653374/
reply
17 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 5 Jul
That's surprising, but maybe there hasn't been reason to challenge the Fed this way before (or reason to believe it'd be effective). Custodia has got to be the most interesting thing going on in Bitcoin that no one is talking about.
reply
110 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Jul
https://cointelegraph.com/news/custodia-appeal-solicitor-general-regulators-debank-crypto?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Jul
Many economists and legal scholars have wondered about the extra constitutional structure of the Federal Reserve
Before 1914 no central bank 🏦 in American
reply