Probably?
Or maybe they think they do but don't.
Isn’t this Elizabeth Warren’s “baby”—she was very much for this...
How does this work if you don’t have credit cards or mortgages or a car loan?
The biggest farce Big Government gave us was the “Bank Secrecy Act”. Does that mean that banks will keep you information secret?
No. It means they can give your information to the government any time they want, if you have “questionable” activity in your account.
The secret? They’re not allowed to tell you if they do.
The continuing outrages from the CFPB is part of the government-as-pure-violence reason I will not vote in the congressional portion of the 2016 election.
But by delegating legislative / regulatory powers to constitutionally undefined agencies like the CFPB, Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 mentioned above.
Also, Thomas Jefferson had indicated, in an official report to President George Washington, that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had decided not to delegate to the feds the specific power to regulate INTRAstate banks.
”A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” - Jeffersons Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
The Supreme Court had also clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limted powers, the power to regulate INTRAstate banking not one of those powers.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So why are banks paying fees to the CFPB? (Note that the Constitutions Clause 1 of Section 7 of Article I, the ”power of the purse” clause, is the feds only source of revenue imo.)
The Supreme Court had also clarified that the states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So why are the feds regulating banks since Jefferson had indicated that they have no constitutional authority to do so?
Noting that banks conduct business with customers on the basis of contracts, not commerce (corrections welcome), the Supreme Court had also clarified that contracts are out of the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating a contract are domiciled in different states.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract[emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” - Paul v. Virginia, 1869.
The corrupt feds unconstitutionally sticking their big noses into INTRAstate banking is arguably just another example why the ill-conceived 17th Amendment should never have been ratified.
Remember in November !
So if patriots elect Trump, or whatever conservative they elect, they will also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its Section 8-limited powers to support the president.
In fact, note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices who help to empower bad-apple presidents to do unconstitutional things.