This article examines arguments against the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, specifically, arguments concerning the separation of powers, the Takings Clause, and the First Amendment. The article is divided into three sections in order to strategically discuss the three issues, the main arguments in favor of each one, and the consequences of the possible unconstitutionality. Arguments concerning the separation of powers contend that Dodd-Frank is problematic from the perspective of the nondelegation doctrine, the Appointments Clause, and Article III. Arguments concerning the Takings Clause are based on substantive challenges to constitutionality. The third argument against the constitutionality of Dodd-Frank examines a First Amendment challenge to section 1502 of the Act, which has been criticized on substantive constitutional grounds. The conclusion briefly examines remedies and discusses the future of Dodd-Frank.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.