Is Sarbanes-Oxley Constitutional?

[Free Bird]

I had a debate in class about this. I cited the commerce clause as a reason for yes, but the other side said that its purpose wasn't listed in 2-8 as an explicit power of Congress.

Cite the clause that justifies it if you vote "yes"

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While the Commerce Clause is the most straightforward way to justify the constitutionality of Sarbanes-Oxley, because of the importance of good accounting records in resolving bankruptcy cases, I think the Bankruptcy Clause could be cited.  Similarly, good accounting records are needed to provide accurate information for the determination of corporate taxes owed the government and thus the Taxing and Spending Clause could be cited, much as it was to uphold the constitutionality of the ACA in NFIB vs. Sebelius.

[Mr. Reactionary]

For the most part. There was a Supreme Court case a few years back where it was determined that one of the bureaucracies created by SOX was unconstitutional in how its officers were appointed and removed. The members of the PCAOB could only be fired for cause, and they were appointed by the SEC Commissioners who could also only be fired for cause. The Court felt that this was a separation of powers violation, since it deprives the President of the executive power to fire or hire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Enterprise_Fund_v._Public_Company_Accounting_Oversight_Board

The D.C. Circuit issued a similar ruling a few years later about the structure of the Copyright Royalty Board.

http://www.bna.com/high-court-lets-n17179874239/