Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board,  ...
Channel: wikipedia tts
Date: 2019-01-28

This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Enterprise_Fund_v._Public_Company_Accounting_Oversight_Board


00:04:15 1 Background
00:04:24 1.1 Facts
00:09:16 1.2 Law
00:10:47 2 Supreme Court
00:10:56 2.1 Holdings
00:20:52 3 See also



Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.

Learning by listening is a great way to:
- increases imagination and understanding
- improves your listening skills
- improves your own spoken accent
- learn while on the move
- reduce eye strain

Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.

Listen on Google Assistant through Extra Audio:
https://assistant.google.com/services/invoke/uid/0000001a130b3f91
Other Wikipedia audio articles at:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wikipedia+tts
Upload your own Wikipedia articles through:
https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts
Speaking Rate: 0.7073729728509432
Voice name: en-US-Wavenet-E


"I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think."
- Socrates


SUMMARY
=======
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 28, 2010. The court held, on a 5-4 vote, that the method through which members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which supervises compliance with the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, are removed violates the United States Constitution's separation of powers.Under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, officers of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) enjoyed dual layers of "for cause" protection against presidential removal. PCAOB officers could be removed only "for good cause shown" by officers of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Officers of the SEC could be removed by the President for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." This meant that although the President could remove high ranking members of the SEC, was unable to govern and execute power to the board, thus a "dual layer" of protection. Sarbanes-Oxley Act's dual for-cause limitations on removal of members of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, under which the President was restricted in his ability to remove principal officer, who was in turn restricted in his ability to remove inferior officer, even though that inferior officer determined policy and enforced laws of the United States, contravened Constitution's separation of powers. The President could not "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" within meaning of Article II if he could not oversee faithfulness of officers who executed them. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, § 1, cl. 1]; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, § 3]; Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, §§ 101(e)(6), 107(d)(3), 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 7211(e)(6)], 7217(d)(3)].These dual layers of limitation on the President's ability to remove PCAOB officers led to separation of powers violations of the Appointments Clause and instead PCAOB officers exercised executive branch powers by determining policy and enforcing the laws of the United States.
Holdings: The Supreme Court, Roberts], Chief Justice, held that:

1] provision of Securities Exchange Act, allowing aggrieved parties to challenge final order or rule of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a court of appeals, did not strip District Court of jurisdiction;
2] Sarbanes-Oxley Act's dual for-cause limitations on removal of members of Board contravened Constitution's separation of powers;
3] such limitations were severable; and
4] appointment of members of Board by SEC did not violate Appointments Clause.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.