• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Veto Bait for President Obama?

    The President is scheduled to sign the financial overhaul bill today, yet he might want to pause a moment to consider not signing this bill because of the potentially unconstitutional racial and gender preference provisions buried in the massive bill. Four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have signed a letter complaining that Section 324 of the conference report titled the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” “includes a section on race and gender that even those who pride themselves on keeping up with national affairs may have failed to notice.” This provision, which can be found on page 172 of the conference report, may lead to unconstitutional racial and gender preferences being forced on financial institutions covered by the new law.

    As the Becker-Posner blog argues, this over 2000-page long bill is “complex, disorderly, politically motivated, and not well thought out reaction to the financial crisis that erupted beginning with the panic of the fall of 2008.” One of the critiques leveled by Gary Becker and Richard Posner is that “the bill adds regulations and rules about many activities that had little or nothing to do with the crisis.” It is clear that the lack of racial and gender preferences had nothing to do with the financial meltdown in the fall of 2008. Section 342 is a special interest provision that has no relevance to financial services reform and may lead to this law being deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

    The letter from members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was signed by Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Ashley Taylor, Gail Heriot, and Todd Gaziano. In the letter these experts in civil rights law explain that the legislation “requires that each covered agency establish an ‘Office of Minority and Women Inclusion’ responsible for ‘all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.’” This law will empower federal bureaucrats to issue rules and regulations governing the financial sector of the economy, if those businesses are doing any work for the federal government.

    The Commissioners further argue that these new bureaucrats will be empowered to shall “’develop standards’ for ‘assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency’ and ‘develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all businesses and activities of the agency.”  According to the letter, this new mandate will cover “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services.”  If these institutions are doing business with the government, newly minted bureaucrats will be allowed to study the racial and gender composition of these covered entities work forces to search for companies with not enough minorities and women in a decision making capacity.

    The commissioners are not the only ones to notice this offensive provision. Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute wrote for Real Clear Markets that “I was searching the bill for a provision about derivatives. What did I find but Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America’s financial industry.” The major media has ignored this important issue, yet this issue may cause some expensive litigation for companies alleged to engage in racial or gender discrimination without any court finding, but merely some bureaucrat deeming them not to be in compliance of the new law.

    This legislation does not merely set up one bureaucracy, but it will be a jobs program for those who specialize in forcing racial and gender quotas on private enterprise. Furchtgott-Roth points out that “the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…all would get their own Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.” As the financial sector outsources to other nations and contracts without this new regulatory stranglehold known as Financial Services Reform, the federal government will have established a new jobs program to further expand the size and scope of the federal government.

    The Commissioners further argue:

    The potential for abuse should be obvious, but sadly sometimes it is not to those who are unfamiliar with the workings of governmental and corporate bureaucracies. All too often, when bureaucrats are charged with the worthy task of preventing race or gender discrimination, they in fact do precisely the opposite: Consciously or unconsciously, they require discrimination by setting overly optimistic goals that can only be fulfilled by discriminating in favor of the groups the goals are supposed to benefit. Those who are regulated by, or do business with, a federal agency are understandably eager to please that agency. When the agency says, “Jump!,” they know the financially smart response is, “How high?,” not “We’re concerned that your diversity goals cannot be achieved without tilting the playing field in favor of one group or another—something we believe the law and the Constitution forbid.”

    At a minimum, President Obama needs to pause before signing this massive new regulatory regime for the financial sector to make sure that he is not violating his oath to the Constitution of the United States.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    15 Responses to Veto Bait for President Obama?

    1. Dennis Georgia says:

      You can easily see that this is just another attempt to take over more of our lives by obama and clan. We will see him sign it and not look back. Socialism is alive and well in congress and the whit house.

    2. Tim AZ says:

      Mao-Bama's oath to the Constitution of the United States was purely in jest. Sorry you didn't get the memo. This regime is testing all the boundaries to see what they can get away with. Sadly so far they haven't been able to find any boundaries they cannot cross.

    3. Tim Az says:

      The oath to the Constitution of the United States that the POTUS took was purely in jest. The regime is testing all boundaries for resistance. Sadly they have yet to find any that can't be penetrated with out consequence.

    4. Randall Holland, Ari says:

      Can these a–holes do anything right. We must suffer them for another 6 years. By then they will have destroyed our economy and most likely our country.

    5. Tim Az says:

      The POTUS took the oath in jest. Am I the only one to notice that the regime crosses Constitutional boundaries nearly everyday without the least bit of consequence?

    6. Sam, Va. says:

      At a minimum, President Obama needs to pause before signing this massive new regulatory regime for the financial sector to make sure that he is not violating his oath to the Constitution of the United States.

      EXCUSE me but he has shown a disregard for either!! So why should he care about this?

    7. West Texan says:

      Any legislative trash coming out of today's congress can't be trusted. And any document this president puts his pen to spells big trouble for Americans. It's like dealing with telephone scam artists. Come this November, don't let them sell you a never ending trumped-up bill of goods to feed their wasteful spending spree using your hard earned dollars. This independent voter is going a straight republican ticket. It's the only hope our nation has at kicking these socialist wannabes out. Please choose constitutionally sensitive republicans wisely during the primaries.

    8. Tim Az says:

      This article has to be sarcasm. If it is not. I ask for one deed or spoken words that would lead anyone to believe that this regime has any allegiance to the Constitution of the United States or its citizens.

    9. Lynn Bryant DeSpain says:

      I personally do not trust in Obama or either of the Houses to abide by our Constitution. They haven't so far, and I see no reason for them to begin now. Our Nation's hope lies in Novembers Vote. vote in all new faces. No Progressives, only Citizen volunteers who wish to abide by our Constitution and represent the Will of the People.

    10. J. Guidry, Battlefie says:

      Constitution, what Constitution? This president and his cohorts only see that document as a target to put holes into on their march to "fundamentally transforming" this nation. The "transformation" is nothing more than a bid for permanent progerssive government in control of this country and the everyday lives of its citizens. Socialism by any name is still the basis for all that is foisted on the population of our once great nation.

      We have a chance, small, but still a chance, to turn this all around in November. Vote out the dumocrats and all left leaning rinos in the Congress. Needs to be done at every level of government, local and state as well. They all need to be gone. Last chance to save our country in November.

    11. Pingback: Today in Washington - July 21, 2010 | RedState

    12. Spiritof76, NH says:

      I read articles like this and I wonder why we have so much reservation about expressing the plain truth.

      Finanace reform bill is another chunk of power ocncentration in the hands of the President. The current occupant is an Anti-American socialist which by itself is anti-constitutional. This is not the first time he has violated the Constitution. In the old days, he would have been driven out of the office. More people cared about our freedom and Constitution.

      A lot of what he is doing is well known before the election. Majority of Americans voted for him, not that the opposition was any good either.

      The question now should be how to remove this guy from office, how to bring charges against Dodd and Frank, the architects of sub-prime debacle and how to purge all the communists from the media, government, Hollywood and Congress. If we believe in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, we can not accommodate totalitarians anywhere in power.

      The problem is nearly half the country believes in "free" handouts from the government.

    13. eugene reed bklyn ny says:

      if we take control of congress,and possibly the senate,we must lobby hard to bring back the house unamerican activities committee. it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have within our republic, our media, and our education system people who are openly espousing policies that are rooted in a marxist – leninist revolutionary model.buried within all of this legislation are policies designed to undermine the principles upon wich America was founded including our judeo-christian values system which has been under attack for quite some time. if we find a reluctance by the newly elected congress to do so, we could always find other legal non-violent ways to do so. we are resorceful americans afterall.

    14. Pingback: Today in Washington – July 21, 2010 | The American Jingoist

    15. Drew Page, IL says:

      Obama's bureaucrats will decide how many of each "protected class" any financial institution doing business with the federal government must have. Are "financial institutions" defined anywhere in this legislation, or will they be defined any way the bureaucrats choose to define them? Any business that takes in money, invests money, or collects money for goods or services could be defined as a "financial institution".

      I thought the "financial reform" act was supposed to be about controlling risky Wall Street brokerage firm practices and risky mortgage loaning practices of banks and savings and loan companies. Why did Barney Frank and Chris Dodd feel it necessary to include racial, ethnic and sexual orientation quotas, to be determined by Obama bureaucrats, be imposed on "financial institutions" doing business with the federal government? Are they trying to create affirmative action quotas among these categories for government contractors to meet?

      What other things, non-related to "financial reform" are included in this legislation? Is Cap & Trade buried in this bill? Is blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens burried in this bill? For God's sake, are we going to be forever stuck with Pelosi's dictate, "You'll find out what's in it after it passes"?

    16. Pingback: Today in Washington – July 21, 2010 « North Houston Tea Party

    17. Pingback: Feds Push New Inclusion Effort in Financial Agencies Nationwide | Political News and Opinion for African-Americans on Politic365

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×