Quote from: coyhasmon on Today at 07:27:59 PM

Quote from: Orpichukwu on Today at 06:58:17 PM

Quote from: coyhasmon on Today at 04:13:47 PM

Wrong, another post by someone who does not live in the US or understand its law. Trump can remove Powell by tomorrow. This would cause a short term negative market reaction, which he does not want. That is the only reason why he does not do it. It has nothing to do with his ability to do it, he has the power to do it.

I don't need to live in the US to read about US law, and I also don't need to be a US citizen before I can read about "Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935): Presidential Power and Independent Agencies", which was a clear case where supreme courts cleared the air of presidential power over independent agencies like the FED. Or has such a law been revoked in the US that I'm not aware of?

You are asking bad AI agents for garbage information before posting, that is your problem and a problem of many people on this forum.

It's only a lazy one that will rely on AI for such data that can easily be gotten with sources, especially in a digital era where constitutions can even be downloaded online.
Federal Reserve Act

Quote

You should not speak on the matters of US if your knowledge is very limited. The case just means that Trump can't dismiss Powell for not liking the way his nose looks or because the weather is very rainy today. In practice it means very little. It leaves a very open field on what for cause means, and they can easily argue this in many ways as it includes any number of things from incapacity, misconduct, neglect and so on it goes. The only practical difference is that Trump must make an argument for a cause, rather than just dismiss him at will without any recourse.

When at cause things are left open to interpretation they are mostly a formality and not a limit of power. It is not a clear case of anything and clearly you don't understand anything about the US.

And if you read my first comment, you will also notice where I talked about such being part of the limited options the president has over the power to remove the chairman, which includes if he's not effective in his duty and if he's doing things based on his personal interest and not for economic benefit, then the president can present a case against him; if it's valid, then that can be used to remove a seating chairperson from office, and not just like he can seat and declare/replace him without any backing.