"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

[Bandit]

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."
Congress can not single out any one particular group or person to punish or make Law for.
I thought there were a few Attorneys in Congress that would know some Basic Constitutional Law.
It is illegal to single out Acorn for punishment by an Act of Congress..
UnConstitutional........

[Beacho]

1. While a disagree with their actions

This isn't really a violation of the constitutional ban on bills of attainder. The government can choose who they wish to fund, or not fund. There is no danger of 'loss of life or liberty' because ACORN is not getting money from the government.

[MineralMan]

2. The argument for the other side...

Congress can, and is constitutionally required to, pass laws regarding the disbursement of federal funds. This argument would win the day, I'm afraid, in court.

Denying federal money to an organization doesn't involve a Bill of Attainder or Ex-Post-Facto law.

[fasttense]

3. It seems that since Raygun was made president by Iran, this country selectively enforces

it's laws, Constitution and policies. Wasn't it Raygun who decided to ignore anti-monopoly laws? Didn't he first ignore the Fairness Doctrine?

Wasn't the Patriot Act a clear violation of the IV and V Amendments?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Laws are just tools to be used or not at the discretion of a (preferably Republicon) President, Vice President or any underling of choice.

[unblock]

5. it's always been that way, though the extent and areas of concern have varied

ever since korea, at least the whole way war has been authorized hasn't been very kosher. then problems have long existed in that area; consider the long war against american indians.

the commerce clause has been expanded to a ridiculous extent, just about anything is now considered a federal issue.


selective enforcement of laws and policies in and of itself is a policy decision and is not altogether wrong or improper. it's actually one of the reasons our founders created separate branches of government. the executive can avoid inflicting what they see as bad law on the people by refusing to enforce it. this is what the shrubbies were doing when they had people in regulatory positions refuse to regulate. the let companies merge, polute, defraud, etc., because that's the policy they wanted. what's wrong and improper is that those were good laws and regulations and a whole lot of bad happened because they chose not to enforce them.

the patriot act is surely in violation of a few parts, but it's a complicated law and parts of it are no doubt fine, others not. to the extent that the process works properly, people are supposed to bring court challenges, and the courts strike down the unconstitutional parts. in practice, though, this means that the government does some unconstitutional things in the meanwhile, it just means they won't be able to make a conviction stick. that helps if the goal of the law is to get convictions. however, if the goal of the law is instead something else, e.g., to intimidate, control, and get intelligence, then they don't care if they never get a conviction.

[unblock]

4. while it would be a "bill of attainder" if they mentioned acorn BY NAME

i have no doubt they'll avoid that elementary mistake.

they'll prevent funding to organizations that have a few narrow characteristics that they happen to know include acorn. they'll defund a few innocent bystanders in the process (e.g., any organization involved in both helping the poor and voter registration drives) but it'll pass constitutional muster that way.

as for ex post facto, this only applies if they yank funding retroactively. it's not ex post facto to drop future funding.