Free Enterprise Fund vs. Public Company Accounting Board

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Facts
Issues
Rules
Analysis
Conclusion
Works Cited

Facts

The public company accounting board was created as part of reforms in an act in 2002. The mandate of the board which was composed of members was to have oversight in the securities industry. This was averse to others like the securities commission which had limited powers (Justia, 6). The board had a right to start an investigation on a matter in the industry emanating from any firm that violated or was perceived to have violated the guidelines to the industry regulator. They did not have control from even the president meaning their power was executive. Free enterprise funds went to the court to seek the powers of the board curtailed on the basis they lacked control (Kilman, 20).

Issues

Free enterprise fund, the petitioner went to the court to seek removal of executive authority from the public company accounting board. The argument was that any executive authority is bestowed on the president of the United States and lack of control from his office of the powers to the board is in deep contravention from the constitution. The appointment of the board members was also questioned as having violated the appointments clause (Justia, 2010). This clause requires presidential appointment and Senate approval: this due process was not followed. Therefore the investigation that had earlier been carried out on the petitioner firm in which crucial information on its auditing procedures was released, was to be declared unconstitutional on that basis (Smith, 19).

Rules

The act that was passed to have the board has executive authority over financial institutions. This is in contravention with the constitution which states “executive powers will be vested in the president of the united states of America”. Therefore vesting the same powers to inferior officers without direct presidential control has separation of powers put into question (Irons, 70).

Analysis

The act blatantly said that the board members can only be removed on a good cause. This expressly restrains the president from removing the members from office on whichever ground, apart from a good cause. This cause is not definable hence lines are hard to be drawn on that case. The commission that has been mandated the removal powers are not under direct presidential control. The petitioner, therefore, has a case considering that it is touching on executive powers vested to the president in the constitution. Congress, therefore, erred in its lawmaking by not putting into consideration separation of powers. This diffusion should not have happened (Justia, 3).

Conclusion

The petitioner free enterprise fund has a genuine case against the plaintiff public company accounting oversight board. The powers bestowed upon the board are contravening presidential executive authority and congress erred in making them. Although the petitioner may have been on the wrong side of the law, the arguments laid pts to question the party that found and duly investigated the complaint. Therefore the petitioner’s auditing procedures should not have been public information at all (Justia, 2). The bench that looked into the case, therefore, found the board was illegally set up and was not under the direct mandate of the president of the United States to conduct their business and be held accountable for their actions if they went against the law. The petitioner was justified to have the case brought to the bench since the board’s decision was appearing final (Daniel, 192).

Works Cited

Daniel, Lorttherm. et al: The Forgotten Founders on Religion and Public Life. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009.

Irons, Peter. A People’s History of the Supreme Court. New York: Penguin Books, 1999.

Justia, Law. Free Enterprise Fund Et Al. V. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Et Al. Web.

Kilman, Justin. The Constitution of the United States: Analysis and Interpretation. London: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Smith, James.E. The Constitution and American Foreign Policy. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1987.

Click Here To Order Now!

Free Enterprise Fund vs. Public Company Accounting Board

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)