[SeekAndFind]

RE: Seems that the law says the President can fire the fed chairman for cause. Since “For cause” was not defined by congress it means whatever the President determines it means.

What ever that “For cause” clause means, it CANNOT be because the President does not like the Fed’s monetary policy. If that were the case, why bother appointing a Fed Chair in the first place? He would be in effect NOT BE INDEPENDENT. Which means, the President might as well BE the Fed chair and set his own monetary policy.

A more satisfactory understanding of the “for cause” phrase would mean corruption or self-enrichment due to holding that position.

For instance, if it can be proven that the Fed chairperson or his family members or close friends were buying and selling bonds based on their KNOWLEDGE of how the Fed chair will be setting interest rates, THAT would be reason to fire him.

[DoodleDawg]

Since “For cause” was not defined by congress it means whatever the President determines it means.

I'm sure the courts will have a say in that.

[John O]

What ever that “For cause” clause means, it CANNOT be because the President does not like the Fed’s monetary policy.

You are of course free to believe whatever you choose to believe. The LAW says "for cause" and leaves it up to the President to determine what that "cause" is.

According to the law as written, if the President did not like the way the fed chairman combed his hair today, he could remove him.

If Congress doesn't want it to mean that, then they need to rewrite the law. Until they do, President Trump can fire whomever he wishes.