This is John Bachelor, conversation with Professor Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution,

a senior fellow teachers law at NYU and the University of Chicago about the recent Supreme Court

decision 6-3 to 3 to 1 to 1 to permit the unusual funding of the of the CFPB. Why this is

unusual is that the money for the CFPB comes from the Federal Reserve, not from Congress.

Congress does not participate in the funding, the review, the oversight.

Unique in all of the federal system, I understand.

And this reaches back to a remark by Justice Story in

in 1833, in other words, the fundamentals of the Supreme Court saying that the funding comes from

Congress and to be reviewed how and when.

Richard turns on that very careful language here, how and when.

not ten years, how and when, not ten years, how and when, annually is how it's done now.

There are exceptions. None of them involve no review by Congress. None of them involve no oversight

by Congress. The Consumer Financial Protection Board, CFPB, Accounting to Question Mark, is Richard Epstein.

The Supreme Court decided okay and Richard dissents. More of this later.

To me it's utterly crazy. It says Congress should have the power to decide.

It doesn't say that Congress should have the power to decide. It doesn't say that Congress should have the power

to delegate that decision to an independent person

who can draw from an available stock of funds

without any question whatsoever.

What he meant about this and is that you look at that clause,

if it's a direct appropriation by Congress,

there is in fact a real question of what the words how and when mean in that

...