ACORN Suing U.S. Over "Unconstitutional" Defunding Bill

[kpete]

Source: Talking Points Memo

ACORN is suing the U.S. government over a law passed recently by Congress that bars the controversial community group from receiving federal money.

In a complaint filed this morning in U.S. District Court in New York, ACORN charges that the law is unconstitutional, because it's a bill of attainder -- that is, it targets a specific individual or group for punishment.

The complaint, brought on behalf of ACORN by the Center for Constitutional Rights, also mounts a broader push-back against ACORN's conservative critics. According to a draft version examined by TPMmuckraker, it claims that the law to defund ACORN was passed thanks to "a public relations campaign orchestrated by political forces" that are hostile to its work registering low-income voters. And it charges that ACORN "earned the animosity of political forces who are dedicated to the proposition that the fewer poor people who vote the better."

"It is outrageous to see Congress violating the Constitution for purposes of political grandstanding," said Bill Quigley of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Congress bowed to FOX News and joined in the scapegoating of an organization that helps average Americans going through hard times to get homes, pay their taxes, and vote. Shame on them."

Read more: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/acorn_suing_us_over_unconstitutional_defunding_bil.php?ref=fpblg

[rd_kent]

1. I hope they win!

[lsewpershad]

17. If they don't

Is there something that can be done? The work that ACORN does is very important.

[MilitarismFTL]

28. A lot of ACORN's previous work is being continued by...

local parties such as the Working Families Party. Although I doubt the WFP will get the funding ACORN lost (or that the WFP will be able to perform ALL the same duties), I know they worked closely together, and the WFP is more free to politicize issues as well. SEIU is also becoming very active in politics and is mobilizing other unions to do the same.

[sabrina 1]

38. And both of those organizations are under the same assault

as ACORN has been for decades, from the rabid right.

We need to fight, not cater to, those who went after ACORN. These reactionary, racist, rightwing think tanks, Morton Blackwell funded political operatives, do not stop.

They went after ACORN BECAUSE of the work they do, helping to fight discrimination regarding home buyers, helping the poor to register to vote, eg.

ACORN has a membership of over 400,000 and cannot easily be replaced, nor should they be based on lies and false allegations, and Congress' stupidity.

I think they will win this suit, and we can thank Rep. Grayson for first drawing attention to the problem with that ridiculous vote which Democrats shamefully supported. Anything brought to the floor by Issa should be questioned.

The problem Congress has if they defund ACORN, an organization that has no fraudulent convictions, they have to defund Blackwater and KB&R, Halliburton and all the other organizations funded by the government who actually have been found guilty of fraud.

That might be a good thing, but oddly, Congress has never moved to defund these corrupt organizations, only ACORN. And that does violate the Constitution. You would think Congress might have known that.

[clear eye]

78. CCR has an online e-petition (link)

The CCR is has created an e-petition to Congress in support, called "Tell Congress It Can’t Be Judge, Jury and Executioner".

You can sign and pass it on.

[BrklynLiberal]

43. That would be so wonderful!

[Zenlitened]

2. K&R (n/t)

[JTFrog]

3. K&R

[blublu]

4. good

[Demeter]

5. Second That!

It's time to take Congress into a back room and slap some sense into them. All of them.

[slackmaster]

6. They're saying that Congress not giving them public money is a form of punishment?

"It is outrageous to see Congress violating the Constitution for purposes of political grandstanding," said Bill Quigley of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Help me out here. What part of the Constitution says that any people or groups other than members of Congress are entitled to federal money at all? (See Article I, Section 6.)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html

[NYC Liberal]

8. I'm not too sure about the specifics

But it's borderline if the situation is that funding was provided to groups of a certain category but then ACORN was specifically name to be left out.

[imdjh]

77. It's a bit of a stretch and a twist. Compare it to the "Walmart law" in Maryland

Walmart maintained (and were correct) that Maryland's law requiring employers with a number of employees above a certain threshold to spend a certain amount of money on health benefits for their employees. As written, the law clearly targeted Walmart and in fact the lawmakers weren't exactly shy about it.

So here we have Acorn claiming the same protection, but the situation is fundamentally different. The state isn't singling out Acorn to be taxed, burdened, or prosecuted- the state is saying that it will no longer give Acorn money. Huge difference.

A better comparison would be a bill that specially or by elimination makes it illegal for any Walmart employee to receive welfare. By effectively prohibiting anyone who receives welfare from working at Walmart, then the state would be singling out Walmart for disadvantage.

[clear eye]

86. No. They are saying that they won't let ACORN apply for money.

Big difference.

[KansDem]

10. I thought it had something to do with Congress declaring someone "guilty" without trial

By defunding ACORN because of allegations of wrongdoing (the videotapes), Congress has in essence judged ACORN to be guilty. However, only a court trial can determine guilt or innocence, which ACORN has not gotten.

That's my take on it (but I'm not a lawyer)...:)

[Wizard777]

14. It was also a violation of Federal law for any Officers of the US to use the illegal tapes in any -

proceeding.

[StreetKnowledge]

45. You are correct, but there is more.

Going after one specific group is also a violation of the constitution under the Bill of Attainder portions. If it goes to trial, ACORN can't lose, because they are right in pointing out that this is a constitutional violation.

[clear eye]

81. Selectively chosen videotapes to boot--

there were a whole bunch of videotapes the same outfit got that showed staff in other ACORN offices refusing to counsel the people who posed as having criminally gotten income. They finally found one office that had fools on staff and represented that as organizational policy.

[laughingliberal]

12. Explanation of the pertinent law

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

[slackmaster]

16. That doesn't explain how Congress not giving someone money constitutes a "punishment"

It's really irrelevant IMO. If Congress is of a mind not to fund ACORN, it can simply not fund them.

Likewise, a future Congress that decides it wants to fund ACORN can simply repeal the law and fund ACORN in one fell swoop.

Obviously the law in question is nothing but political grandstanding, but so is this lawsuit IMO.

[laughingliberal]

29. If the organization is singled out, by name, as ineligible to receive federal funds

and similar organizations are not excluded, it constitutes a bill of attainder. If they applied for the money along with everyone else and the grant were awarded to another organization, that would be a different scenario. Naming them exclusively as ineligible for the funds is the problem with the law.

It would be tantamount to saying slackmaster is not allowed to apply for federal disability funds.

[noiretextatique]

64. Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

seems pretty clear to me that this is exactly what happened. rw nuts like bachman have all but admitted their goal was to defund ACORN.

[Hansel]

82. It's the stripping of the money and the reasons for it that is the issue. nt

[struggle4progress]

21. Restrictions, on who can compete for Federal funds, should be described by objective criteria:

but the bill simply singles out ACORN. The suit won't argue that ACORN is entitled to Federal dollars; it will argue that it is unfair to single out ACORN by name as ineligible to compete

Here's a hypothetical: Suppose Congress authorized some Community Firearm Safety Training Grants, allowing groups or individuals to apply for Federal dollars to offer Community Firearm Safety Training programs in their states. Congress can certainly restrict the Grants to "qualified group or individuals" -- and it has considerable leeway in defining who is qualified or disqualified. However, Congress cannot simply write out certain groups or individuals: qualification or disqualification should be defined in rational and neutral language with an arguably relevant purpose. Congress can't make the grants available only to blue-eyed people and similarly can't disqualify people who refuse to eat shrimp, because those are not arguably relevant criteria. Similarly, Congress can't just make "Slackmaster's Save Your Children Foundation" or "Struggle4Progress's Save Our Children Foundation" by name ineligible to compete for Grant monies, because that involves an unfair particularity at law; proponents of not funding either group might argue that Slackmaster was stopped once on suspicion of running a stop sign or that Struggle4Progress had been ticketed for littering -- but such concerns could only be fairly addressed by disqualifying everyone who had ever been suspected of running a stop sign or who had been ticketed for littering, rather than by singling out a few individuals by name

[slackmaster]

23. It is, uh, kind of objective - Here is the full text

It prohibits "Any organization that has been indicted for a violation..." so it COULD apply to other organizations, and then specifically calls out ACORN by stating "The term `organization' includes..." ACORN.

It's a pretty sleazy deal, I agree; but I'm not sure it's a Bill of Attainder.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defund ACORN Act'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL FUNDS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN INDICTED ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibitions- With respect to any covered organization, the following prohibitions apply:

(1) No Federal contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or any other form of agreement (including a memorandum of understanding) may be awarded to or entered into with the organization.

(2) No Federal funds in any other form may be provided to the organization.

(3) No Federal employee or contractor may promote in any way (including recommending to a person or referring to a person for any purpose) the organization.

(b) Covered Organization- In this section, the term `covered organization' means any of the following:

(1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration.

(2) Any organization that had its State corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with Federal or State lobbying disclosure requirements.

(3) Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency.

(4) Any organization that--

(A) employs any applicable individual, in a permanent or temporary capacity;

(B) has under contract or retains any applicable individual; or

(C) has any applicable individual acting on the organization's behalf or with the express or apparent authority of the organization.

(c) Additional Definitions- In this section:

(1) The term `organization' includes the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (in this subsection referred to as `ACORN') and any ACORN-related affiliate.

(2) The term `ACORN-related affiliate' means any of the following:

(A) Any State chapter of ACORN registered with the Secretary of State's office in that State.

(B) Any organization that shares directors, employees, or independent contractors with ACORN.

(C) Any organization that has a financial stake in ACORN.

(D) Any organization whose finances, whether federally funded, donor-funded, or raised through organizational goods and services, are shared or controlled by ACORN.

(3) The term `applicable individual' means an individual who has been indicted for a violation under Federal or State law relating to an election for Federal or State office.

(d) Revision of Federal Acquisition Regulation- The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to carry out the provisions of this Act relating to contracts.

[struggle4progress]

26. Nadler, chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, disagrees:

Nadler: Cutting Off Federal Funds to ACORN "Flatly Unconstitutional"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4066293

[slackmaster]

30. Let's assume the court decides the law is unconstitutional - What will the remedy be?

The law would be stricken, but the Congress that wrote it still isn't going to fund ACORN.

So, why bother with this suit?

[ieoeja]

35. 99% of federal funds are not directed by congress.

They provide funds for a purpose, but do not generally state who gets those funds.

Example: they give $XXX to the Commerce Department for Small Business Loans. They define the defintion of a small business, the terms of the loans, etc. But they sure as heck don't review each and every loan application!

Ditto Veterans who apply for benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, not from Congress. Congress gives the money to the VA, not each and every named veteran.

[slackmaster]

52. AH! I get it now. They're being denied the privilege of applying for money, without due process

And no way to appeal that status.

It's a Bill of Attainder.

Thanks!!!

[struggle4progress]

36. To my knowledge, Congress has never funded ACORN:

ACORN has sometimes subcontracted to do specific work for various organizations that applied for and received some federal grant money. Since such grants typically require reporting, the grantees have no incentive to subcontract work to non-performers: if ACORN has continued to obtain such contracts, it's because ACORN did the work

The issue is not whether ACORN is entitled to Federal dollars: the issue is whether everyone is entitled to a level playing field, with laws based on objective criteria, rather than laws that target by name whoever is unpopular

[laughingliberal]

40. In most situations concerning ACORN, Congress doesn't decide to whom the funds go

Congress allocates money for certain purposes. Various organizations involved in the type of projects for which the money was allocated apply for the grants. Congress does not run that process.

[ieoeja]

34. Section 2(c) is unconstitutional

Congress can prohibit funding to indicted organizations that match a certain criteria, but they do not have the constitutional power to determine which organizations match that criteria.

If the Secretary of Whatever cuts me off from funding under this bill, I can challenge that determination in court. In ACORN's case the sec'y just has to say, "I made the determination that ACORN qualifies as a covered organization under this bill as defined by section 2(c) which states that ACORN qualifies."

ACORN is guilty because the law states, "ACORN is guilty"?

It would be like Congress passing a law declaring slackmaster guilty of manslaughter. You get arrested and the entire prosecution consists of, "this is slackmaster. According to bill/section slackmaster is guilty of manslaughter. The prosecution rests."

Your only defense is to prove that you are not slackmaster. Because if you are, then you are guilty because the law says you are.

It is perfectly legal. And perfectly unconstitutional.

[Canuckistanian]

67. I think it's terrible what they're doing to slackmaster

slackmaster should sue.

Oh, wait.....

[JoeyT]

46. You're correct that it isn't all that specific.

It applies to a helluva lot of companies: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater/Xe, etc etc. The way it becomes a bill of attainder is when they flatly refuse to enforce it against anyone but Acorn. It doesn't help that they were stupid enough to name it that.

[slackmaster]

53. It's designed for selective enforcement, like a lot of other bad laws

I now agree that it is unconstitutional.

[Devil_Fish]

66. This bill should also defund Black Water and a whole bunch of other contractors.

From the bill's text:

(b) Covered Organization- In this section, the term `covered organization' means any of the following:

(1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration.

(2) Any organization that had its State corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with Federal or State lobbying disclosure requirements.

(3) Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency.

A whole bunch of contractors are guilty of item 3.

unless Black Water, Haliburton, and a whole slew of others are also defunded then this is clearly a bill of attainder.

[No Elephants]

72. That certainly singles out ACORN. I think the circumstances surrounding enactment of that bill

amply demonstrate that Congress enacted the bill because it had heard about the tapes. had concluded that ACORN was guilty and enacted the bill to punish ACORN.

[clear eye]

85. Oh, yeah. It sure looks like it is such a bill for at least two reasons

1) They use the term "certain indicted organizations" NOT "all indicted organizations" who meet the criteria, which gives them discretion to exclude military contractors, etc.

More importantly,

2) They include an "Additional Definition" which by naming ACORN and all connected groups, prevents federal agencies from applying the loophole to ACORN.

[Stevepol]

24. I think the Constitution outlaws "bills of attainder."

Alan Grayson had a confrontation with a GA rep recently in which he questioned the guy on exactly this. A bill of attainder is exactly what has been mentioned, a bill that seeks to punish an organization or person without trial. The law has to be in general terms, i.e., it can outlaw groups that violate federal law or embezzle money, etc.

But if the law is expressed in general terms, then Blackwater, and a dozen defense contractors along with Halliburton, et al. have committed far more egregious crimes than ACORN and yet they were not mentioned in the law that was passed defunding ACORN.

If ACORN can get Grayson to represent them, he can bring down the whole corrupt system or come damn near doing it, if the law is held to be constitutional.

[cheapdate]

25. The Constitution of the United States...

Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." The definition of a bill of attainder is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. This is exactly the kind of action that the clause in the constitution was intended to prevent. Can the government pass a law that specifically prohibits a particular individual (say you or me) from receiving federal education benefits because of rumors of involvement in criminal activity? The constitution gives Congress the power to spend money to conduct the public's business...it also obligates them to use that power fairly. Is it punishment? It seems to me that in any ordinary sense of the word it is.

[baldguy]

37. It's called a Bill Of Attainder - and per Art 1 Sec 9 it's unconstitutional.

If the govt sets up a program to offer grant money, they can't arbitrarily deny the right of a particular individual or group to apply for it.

[Psephos]

65. You're right about BOT, but wrong about specifying who may or may not be granted funds n/t

[sabrina 1]

49. The part of the Constitution they are suing over

is when the government targets one group or individual for punishment without trial. It's called a 'Bill of Attainder', which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution. Thanks go to Constitutional scholar, Rep. Jerry Nadler, who raised the issue as soon as he saw the bill.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

Reps. Grayson, Conyers and Barney Frank have also raised the question of the constitutionality of the bill. Grayson is compiling a list of Defense Contractors who would have to be defunded also if the bill goes into effect. And Conyers and Frank have asked for Congressional research to be done to determine whether or not the bill is unconstitutional as it is now written.

The bill to defund ACORN was written by Republicans never known for their Constitutional expertise and it seems they have outsmarted themselves this time. Democrats who foolishly jumped on board, are the biggest disappointment as we expect more from them than from Republicans.

Had they waited, they would know that the whole stunt which caused them to rush into this, was mostly a lie, the tapes were heavily edited to falsely create a negative impression, lies were told, since exposed by police reports etc. and questions raised about who funded it. Not to mention the laws of two states that were violated.

It looks like ACORN has a good case and I really hope they win it. And I hope Democrats have learned a lesson about being led around by the nose by Republicans, but I doubt it.

Apparently the bill, if enacted would affect the entire MIC and ironically, would probably have to exclude ACORN for whom it was specifically and maliciously written. They alone in the list of Defense Contractors already filed, have never been convicted of fraud.

More information on this here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/09/23/grayson/

[Lerkfish]

55. it certainly was portrayed as punishment by those who supported the bill of attainder

was it not?

[willing dwarf]

7. "Controversial Group"

Isn't it annoying that even in left wing blogs like TPM the wording is so main-stream party-line? The right has worked for years to destabilize groups like ACORN and so pushed controversy on them. They have worked tirelessly to improve the lives of the marginalized and disenfranchised and they have been subject to attacks for it for years.

The set-up that led to them loosing funding was an obnoxious gottcha -- there's a real concerted effort to eliminate the far left. ACORN is one of the few defenders of the little guy. We should all be supporting them so they can hire better people to do their work and have the oversight to be sure they are living up to their commitments.

[KansDem]

9. Here's Rep. Grayson spanking the GOP over this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKz5ZHM8kFM

Listen to all the know-nothing GOPers try to wrestle Grayson's time from him! :rofl:

No, I will not yield my time! :woohoo: GO, GRAYSON!!!

[watrwefitinfor]

19. Know-nothing GOPers - kind of like the know-nothing DUers who

take up for Republicans and reactionary Democrats over groups whose reason for existence is to stand up for working and poor people.

Wat

[David Zephyr]

89. +1

.

[Wizard777]

11. YES! It's also a violation of Federal Law.

The bill was introduced based on the contents of an illegal oral recording. It may not be used in any proceeding by the United States.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc18.wais&start=3998747&SIZE=1035&TYPE=TEXT">Sec. 2515. Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

13. I seen this coming...

... by singling out ACORN they walked right into the "bill of attainder" mess, knowingly, willingly and spitefully.

[lobodons]

15. Fine, just reword the Bill.

Reword the Bill to "any organization" rather than ACORN individually. If the purpose of the Bill is fundamentally correct, than it must apply to any other organization, correct..??

[intheflow]

18. The bill is called "Defund ACORN..."

That's why it's pertinent for ACORN to not include other organizations, that's why they have a case. It'[s a broad interpretation of the law but only they are being held accountable when many more agencies should be included. Like Blackwater, for instance.

[Tempest]

22. The reason the bill was reworded to say ACORN in the first place

Was because it was pointed out that other organizations, like Blackwater, would have been defunded in the original bill.

Congress backed themselves into a corner they won't get out of.

[Tempest]

20. Rewording the bill won't resolve the underlying issue

And that is ACORN was defunded using ILLEGAL recordings and without legal proceedings.

[western mass]

27. This whole discussion is beside the point

The only point that liberals and progressives should be giving a damn about is that this Democratic Congress passed a bill that specifically defunded a liberal group. How many bills have they passed that specifically defunded right-wing groups? Anybody?

And you think these "Democrats" are on your side?

[No Elephants]

73. ACORN is non-partisan, not a "liberal" group.

[sabrina 1]

51. It is not fundamentally correct. It is probably one of the most

embarrassing violations of the Constitution on record by Congress and it should scare any citizen to know that their Representatives who swear to protect the Constitution, in both parties, know so little about it.

Read the Constitution and you will see how monumentally stupid this bill is. That only 75 members voted against it, is a disgrace.

As it stands now, to make it comply with the Constitution, it would have to defund the entire MIC. Which would be fine by me, btw.

ACORN has an excellent case and will most likely win. Congress owes them, but more so the people, an apology, in fact Issa and his moronic Republican cohorts who wrote the bill should be impeached.

The Democrats who voted for it should be explaining why they did so, and if it were up to me, all of them would be replaced.

[Lorien]

57. That would be fine by me. We could defund Halliburtan, KB&R, Blackwater

and pretty much every military profiteer we deal with.

[Devil_Fish]

68. " Any organization" is in there:

(b) Covered Organization- In this section, the term `covered organization' means any of the following:

(1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration.

(2) Any organization that had its State corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with Federal or State lobbying disclosure requirements.

(3) Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency.

there for this bill encompasses Black Water, Haliburton, Lockheed, the list goes on and on.....

[newtothegame]

31. Polls show ACORN has tons of support; why does it need government funding? n/t

[Tempest]

33. The Olympics has tons of support

But good luck getting games held without government funding.

[Uncle Joe]

32. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.:thumbsup:

[Romulox]

39. Just because a suit is filed doesn't mean it has merit.

They paid the filing fee and put some cock-and-bull complaint together. People are acting like that settles the issue. :eyes:

Their legal theory is novel, and has little merit. LOL at people upthread solemnly pronouncing "it IS a bill of attainder!" as if the question were well settled.

[boppers]

48. How would you argue against them?

The law not only singles out ACORN by name, but in another section, it prohibits funding based on indictments, rather than convictions.

[Romulox]

59. The question does not turn on whether they are named, but rather whether they have been "punished"

And the onus is upon those who claim that this is (without any doubt, no less!) a Bill of Attainder to demonstrate where the Court has ever held the denial of Federal funding is a "punishment". Another poster has got it wrong upthread--the due process analysis doesn't apply to that question.

In other words, if there is no property right involved, there is no punishment.

[boppers]

62. United States v. Brown (A law prohibiting Communists from Union Leadership)

....Denying the right to work in a job.

Quoting Cummings v. Missouri :
"A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."

US v. Lovett (taking away Government pay checks of suspected communists):
"Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a trial, are 'bills of attainder' prohibited under this clause."

The counter-argument would be that the grant money, like the paychecks (in Brown and Lovett), is a form of property, I suppose... It'll be interesting to watch.

[No Elephants]

74. After enactment of the bill, does ACORN have fewer rights than it

had before enactment of the bill?

If your answer is yes, then ACORN has not only been punished, but has been single out for punishment by a law.

[BennyD]

54. I agree with you.

By the way, what the heck is that in your picture?

[Romulox]

60. It's 3D Vulcan chess! nt

[24601]

41. The reason they will lose is that funding is an explicit Article I

Congressional Power. The courts upheld blackmailing states to lower speed limits and drinking ages or face cut offs of highway funding going to the states.

Simply, no one has a right to be funded from the Treasury. And not being funded isn't punishment in the Constitutional Context of a Bill of Attainder - otherwise I have a case since Congress hasn't funded me either, the bastards. Have you gotten your $4 Million? No? Then let's go for a class-action.

Suing for failing to fund has as much chance as suing the President for failing to issue a pardon - both are absolutely discretionary and Acorn's suit shall fail. I'm amazed their lawyers are wasting the money in the attempt.

[struggle4progress]

42. Perhaps you should read the law in question, and the suit against it, before jabbering

ACORN does not claim a "right" to Federal funding

[laughingliberal]

47. It isn't about a right to be funded from the Treasury

It is about being excluded from applying for funds. You would have a case if Congress passed a law saying 24601 is not allowed to apply for any federal grants for which he may qualify. Unless Congress includes every organization accused of fraud from applying for and receiving federal funds this is a bill of attainder. I, personally, hope they do include all the organizations accused of fraud. We could defund the entire military-industrial complex with that language.

[Romulox]

61. You sound certain. Any cites to back that up?

:shrug:

[struggle4progress]

70. Go read the lawsuit. You can find it at the CCR site

[clear eye]

88. To avoid defunding the MIC they provided a loophole by saying

"certain indicted organizations" instead of "all indicted organizations" who meet the criteria. This led to adding the probably unconstitutional "Additional Definition" naming ACORN and all connected groups, to prevent federal agencies from applying the loophole to ACORN.

[sabrina 1]

50. The suit isn't about funding.

It's about what amounts to a Bill of Attainder. It's in Article 1 of the Constitution and expressly forbids Congress from singling out an organization or individual for punishment without a trial.

Congress had already funded them. Taking away the funding was a punishment for something that was never even investigated, let alone charged. They have an excellent case. Republicans wrote the bill, so it's no wonder it is unconstitutional.

They will win this case. Unless Congress defunds every other organization they are funding who has been convicted of fraud. ACORN, unlike Halliburton, KB&R, Blackwater and the whole list of other Defense Contractors which Rep. Grayson is compiling, all have been found guilty of fraud.

If this bill goes into effect, it could defund the entire Military Industrial Complex. I think ACORN might be willing to lose the miniscule amount of funding they receive in order to save the trillions that goes to fund all of our adventures overseas.

Go Acorn! This was a shameful act by Congress, the practice according to Rehnquist, was viewed as 'odious' by the Founding Fathers.

See my other post in this thread which has links to the law under which they are suing.

[Lerkfish]

56. by the same arguments used against ACORN, no military industrial complex company would be funded.

certainly not blackwater.

since they do not enforce their criteria equally, they leave themselves open for a lawsuit, IMHO, not being a lawyer.

[gtar100]

44. Good for them. Congress acted hastily under the duress of whiny ass repugs.

I hope they get their funding and more and with that money remove from office all the corporate toadies.

[Lorien]

58. Democrats eating their own to kowtow to out of power repugs

does it get much more pitiful than that?

[mstinamotorcity]

63. I got a question?

Wasn't ACORN under some obligation to accept any applications for services, voter registrations,housing help etc.,by there contractors. Don't they separate applications that they feel that are questionable for further review. I thought I saw the woman who runs ACORN on i think it was Hardball say that she was duty bound to turn in all applications for service no matter what. That they single out any thing that has some question. And if that is the case, even though the funky fox tapes were illegal, weren't they only doing what they were supposed to. I mean if i come in and say i want a specific service no matter what crazy s--t i say aren't they suppose to let me fill out the application and if the feel that there's something objectional, they would put it aside for further scrutiny? And yes i do get the that congress could not single ACORN out. Win the case troopers.

[clear eye]

87. That only applies to voter registration. n/t

[edwardian]

69. It's as if America no longer has

a Constitution. You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUCKED!

[No Elephants]

76. If America had no Constitution, ACORN would not have been able to sue.

Having a Constitution does not mean that it is never violated, just as having a law doesn't mean that that law is never violated.

BTW, I've seen a few posts of yours in which you seem enthusiastic about bashing America. Which perfect nation are you from?

[JonQ]

71. You have a constitutional right to federal funds?

And not receiving those funds is an illegal punishment?

Well shucks, the government has been violating my rights and penalizing me unfairly for decades!

[No Elephants]

75. Read the thread. Better yet, read the lawsuit.

[clear eye]

79. You have a Constitutional right to due process

and not being singled out and arbitrary blocked from qualifying for funds with an unsubstantiated accusation of illegal activities.

In general, it's a good idea to be informed on an issue before posting snark.

[JonQ]

80. Due process applies in legal proceeding

choosing to defund an organization is not a legal proceeding. They haven't been tried for anything.

[clear eye]

83. More confusion.

Due process applies to all sorts of de facto contractual arrangements. The most common probably regards termination of employment, especially, but not only, if the fired person belongs to a union.

In future, it's probably a good starting assumption that lawyers for a reputable NGO, like the CCR, when they decide to file suit on another group's behalf, have a legal leg to stand on. Personally, I'd first read the info they have on their site. If something still seemed odd, I'd either try to read the summary of the brief, or even email or call their office, to see what their reasoning is.

Duers generally ask for the basis of a comment if it seems out of line, so it's a good idea to have a solid source when you call BS against a popular position.

[defendandprotect]

84. They asked Roger Ailes for the FULL/ORIGINAL copies of the O'Keefe videos . . .

and I think Congress should make sure they get them --

and that there are hearings.

ACORN has obviously been very successful in getting poor folks out to vote --

and the Repugs sure don't like it!!!