Major victory for ACORN and the Constitution

[SMR 368]

The thing is that you can't use legislation to "declare" someone or some organization guilty of a crime. That has to be done through the courts. That is why it is unconstitutional. It's like writing a law that says Person X is guilty of such and such crime and therefore we will punish them in Y manner. It's not allowed.

From Wikipedia:

"Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

As to ACORN: "Since 1994, the group has received about $53 million in federal aid."

Wow.

"Blackwater Worldwide (awarded $1.21 billion in contracts since 2003)"

So Blackwater gets $200 million PER YEAR, in which time they have been responsible for crimes which have resulted in DEATH, and ACORN gets $53 million over 15 years and every one is up in arms because a couple of employees didn't investigate the statements people were making.

Acorn has a Constitutional right to federal funding? That's ridiculous. I like to see the citation for that in the Constitution.

I think you should go back and reread the article again, this time more carefully.

Actually, I read it carefully and understood it. In affect, Acorn is asserting that, once a program received federal funding, it can't be de-funded until it's found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law. Anything about budget years, etc. is irrelevant in this situation. Congress can fund or de-fund whoever it wants.

The most ridiculous thing about this is that if Acorn wasn't suspected of wrongdoing and Congress simply decided to de-fund them, their argument wouldn't have any legs. But since they are suspected of wrongdoing, they claim Constitutional protection. Think about that. If the videos had never been released, Congress could de-fund them whenever it wanted to, without citing a reason. Why does the fact that they are suspected of wrongdoing change that?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The thing is that you can't use legislation to "declare" someone or some organization guilty of a crime. That has to be done through the courts. That is why it is unconstitutional. It's like writing a law that says Person X is guilty of such and such crime and therefore we will punish them in Y manner. It's not allowed.

From Wikipedia:

"Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

As to ACORN: "Since 1994, the group has received about $53 million in federal aid."

Wow.

"Blackwater Worldwide (awarded $1.21 billion in contracts since 2003)"

So Blackwater gets $200 million PER YEAR, in which time they have been responsible for crimes which have resulted in DEATH, and ACORN gets $53 million over 15 years and every one is up in arms because a couple of employees didn't investigate the statements people were making.

Acorn has a Constitutional right to federal funding? That's ridiculous. I like to see the citation for that in the Constitution.

I think you should go back and reread the article again, this time more carefully.

Actually, I read it carefully and understood it. In affect, Acorn is asserting that, once a program received federal funding, it can't be de-funded until it's found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law.

It was the Supreme Court who ruled to uphold the Constitution. I'd suggest maybe reading it a third or fourth time then.

[slim 1,533]

In affect, Acorn is asserting that, once a program received federal funding, it can't be de-funded until it's found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law.

Here's the whole problem. Once we start sucking on the teat of big govt. it's hard to get weaned. It becomes an entitlement.

[SMOKE 1,426]

two employees gave unethical advice to someone using a hidden camera and pretending to be somebody they weren't.

uhm no. it was multiple employees in several locations attempting to help a couple pretending to be a pimp & a hooker looking to smuggle underage girls into the country for the purpose of prostitution.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

two employees gave unethical advice to someone using a hidden camera and pretending to be somebody they weren't.

uhm no. it was multiple employees in several locations attempting to help a couple pretending to be a pimp & a hooker looking to smuggle underage girls into the country for the purpose of prostitution.

What's the employee theft rate at the major retail chains...something like 30%? Does that mean the retail stores are condoning the behavior? There have been undercover stunts that go after businesses like auto repair shops and oil and change shops, where they have found unethical behavior leading to the firing of those rogue employees. In a few cases, it was proven that such practices were condoned by higher-ups in the company and some class action lawsuits prevailed. Like I said earlier - if ACORN, the organization is found culpable for any illegal or unethical behavior by their employees, then it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, so far, after several independent investigations, nothing has been found.

[SMR 368]

The thing is that you can't use legislation to "declare" someone or some organization guilty of a crime. That has to be done through the courts. That is why it is unconstitutional. It's like writing a law that says Person X is guilty of such and such crime and therefore we will punish them in Y manner. It's not allowed.

From Wikipedia:

"Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

As to ACORN: "Since 1994, the group has received about $53 million in federal aid."

Wow.

"Blackwater Worldwide (awarded $1.21 billion in contracts since 2003)"

So Blackwater gets $200 million PER YEAR, in which time they have been responsible for crimes which have resulted in DEATH, and ACORN gets $53 million over 15 years and every one is up in arms because a couple of employees didn't investigate the statements people were making.

Acorn has a Constitutional right to federal funding? That's ridiculous. I like to see the citation for that in the Constitution.

I think you should go back and reread the article again, this time more carefully.

Actually, I read it carefully and understood it. In affect, Acorn is asserting that, once a program received federal funding, it can't be de-funded until it's found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law.

It was the Supreme Court who ruled to uphold the Constitution. I'd suggest maybe reading it a third or fourth time then.

First, it wasn't the Supreme Court. The case was based on supposed Supreme Court precedent. Even if it was the Supreme Court, I don't see why repeating the court ruling makes any difference. I disagree with the court.

More to the point, there is a difference between revoking a right and revoking a privilege. Rights are constitutionally protected and can't be revoked by Congress. The key here is that federal funding is a privilege that can be revoked without any reason at all. If they don't need a reason in the first place, then there is no reason to prove that the reason is valid and supported by evidence. Thus, Acorn doesn't get it's day in court.

This court is ruling that Congress cannot revoke Acorn's funding. That implies that the funding is a right, hence my original post (a constitutional right was originally something that Congress could not restrict by law. Hence, if the Constitution prevents Congress from restricting something, it can be called a constitutional right). The most outrageous part of this whole thing is that the allegation of wrongdoing is essentially the basis for saying the funding is irrevocable. Lawyer speak and such aside, that should be outrageous to anyone with a basic sense of justice. If you aren't accused of anything, your funding can be canceled for no reason. If someone accuses you of something, your funding becomes Constitutionally protected. If nothing else, that is evidence that the American legal system is overrun by corrupt lawyers.

Edited December 14, 2009 by SMR

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The thing is that you can't use legislation to "declare" someone or some organization guilty of a crime. That has to be done through the courts. That is why it is unconstitutional. It's like writing a law that says Person X is guilty of such and such crime and therefore we will punish them in Y manner. It's not allowed.

From Wikipedia:

"Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

As to ACORN: "Since 1994, the group has received about $53 million in federal aid."

Wow.

"Blackwater Worldwide (awarded $1.21 billion in contracts since 2003)"

So Blackwater gets $200 million PER YEAR, in which time they have been responsible for crimes which have resulted in DEATH, and ACORN gets $53 million over 15 years and every one is up in arms because a couple of employees didn't investigate the statements people were making.

Acorn has a Constitutional right to federal funding? That's ridiculous. I like to see the citation for that in the Constitution.

I think you should go back and reread the article again, this time more carefully.

Actually, I read it carefully and understood it. In affect, Acorn is asserting that, once a program received federal funding, it can't be de-funded until it's found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law.

It was the Supreme Court who ruled to uphold the Constitution. I'd suggest maybe reading it a third or fourth time then.

First, it wasn't the Supreme Court. The case was based on supposed Supreme Court precedent. Even if it was the Supreme Court, I don't see why repeating the court ruling makes any difference. I disagree with the court.

More to the point, there is a difference between revoking a right and revoking a privilege. Rights are constitutionally protected and can't be revoked by Congress. The key here is that federal funding is a privilege that can be revoked without any reason at all. If they don't need a reason in the first place, then there is no reason to prove that the reason is valid and supported by evidence. Thus, Acorn doesn't get it's day in court.

This court is ruling that Congress cannot revoke Acorn's funding. That implies that the funding is a right, hence my original post (a constitutional right was originally something that Congress could not restrict by law. Hence, if the Constitution prevents Congress from restricting something, it can be called a constitutional right). The most outrageous part of this whole thing is that the allegation of wrongdoing is essentially the basis for saying the funding is irrevocable. Lawyer speak and such aside, that should be outrageous to anyone with a basic sense of justice. If you aren't accused of anything, your funding can be canceled for no reason. If someone accuses you of something, your funding becomes Constitutionally protected. If nothing else, that is evidence that the American legal system is overrun by corrupt lawyers.

That's why I recommend you go back and reread it again to understand the argument better. Congress passes legislation, but it is the Executive Branch that signs it into law. Currently, funding for ACORN falls under an existing law. If Congress wants to defund ACORN, they must pass legislation that the President would sign into law, which would nullify the previous law.

Edit: Congress cannot just pass legislation, however, that singles out ACORN from funding. That is unconstitutional.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[SMR 368]

The thing is that you can't use legislation to "declare" someone or some organization guilty of a crime. That has to be done through the courts. That is why it is unconstitutional. It's like writing a law that says Person X is guilty of such and such crime and therefore we will punish them in Y manner. It's not allowed.

From Wikipedia:

"Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"

As to ACORN: "Since 1994, the group has received about $53 million in federal aid."

Wow.

"Blackwater Worldwide (awarded $1.21 billion in contracts since 2003)"

So Blackwater gets $200 million PER YEAR, in which time they have been responsible for crimes which have resulted in DEATH, and ACORN gets $53 million over 15 years and every one is up in arms because a couple of employees didn't investigate the statements people were making.

Acorn has a Constitutional right to federal funding? That's ridiculous. I like to see the citation for that in the Constitution.

I think you should go back and reread the article again, this time more carefully.

Actually, I read it carefully and understood it. In affect, Acorn is asserting that, once a program received federal funding, it can't be de-funded until it's found guilty of wrongdoing in a court of law.

It was the Supreme Court who ruled to uphold the Constitution. I'd suggest maybe reading it a third or fourth time then.

First, it wasn't the Supreme Court. The case was based on supposed Supreme Court precedent. Even if it was the Supreme Court, I don't see why repeating the court ruling makes any difference. I disagree with the court.

More to the point, there is a difference between revoking a right and revoking a privilege. Rights are constitutionally protected and can't be revoked by Congress. The key here is that federal funding is a privilege that can be revoked without any reason at all. If they don't need a reason in the first place, then there is no reason to prove that the reason is valid and supported by evidence. Thus, Acorn doesn't get it's day in court.

This court is ruling that Congress cannot revoke Acorn's funding. That implies that the funding is a right, hence my original post (a constitutional right was originally something that Congress could not restrict by law. Hence, if the Constitution prevents Congress from restricting something, it can be called a constitutional right). The most outrageous part of this whole thing is that the allegation of wrongdoing is essentially the basis for saying the funding is irrevocable. Lawyer speak and such aside, that should be outrageous to anyone with a basic sense of justice. If you aren't accused of anything, your funding can be canceled for no reason. If someone accuses you of something, your funding becomes Constitutionally protected. If nothing else, that is evidence that the American legal system is overrun by corrupt lawyers.

That's why I recommend you go back and reread it again to understand the argument better. Congress passes legislation, but it is the Executive Branch that signs it into law. Currently, funding for ACORN falls under an existing law. If Congress wants to defund ACORN, they must pass legislation that the President would sign into law, which would nullify the previous law.

Edit: Congress cannot just pass legislation, however, that singles out ACORN from funding. That is unconstitutional.

The main problem with this whole article and legal argument is that it is talking about guilt, conviction, and punishment. Guilt was never established and no one asserted that it was. The only action which could be construed as a punishment was an action that could be taken without any allegations whatsoever. In short, Congress is not convicting Acorn of a crime. That would be completely unnecessary in order to de-fund them, which Congress has the constitutional power to do whenever it wants.

The bar for receiving federal funding is obviously higher than simply not being convicted in court of misconduct as many organizations without convictions don't receive funding. Therefore, the bar for de-funding is also above a conviction. That is, Congress can de-fund an organization without a court conviction. Unless this is the case, any organization that receives federal funding could never be de-funded until it is convicted of a crime in court. But that's ridiculous.

Furthermore, the legal ruling is based on precedent established in a case regarding non-discrimination in federal employment. That is really a completely different issue. This is really a stretch.

[zqt3344 21]

ACORN is going down fast, this is a temporary feel good moment that is going to end soon!

by Glenn Greenwald,

In September, I interviewed Rep. Alan Grayson about the unconstitutionality of Congress' attempt to de-fund ACORN, and a couple of weeks later, examined Supreme Court precedent -- principally the 1946 case of U.S. v. Lovett -- that left little doubt that the Congressional war on ACORN violated the Constitutional ban on "bills of attainder." Yesterday, in a lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Federal District Judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York found Congress' de-funding of ACORN unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. This is a major victory not only for ACORN, but also for the Constitution.

Judge Gershon's opinion is a model of careful and dispassionate judicial reasoning. Rejecting the DOJ's claim that Congress had merely exercised its funding discretion rather than "punished" ACORN, the court wrote: "Wholly apart from the vociferous comments by various members of Congress as to ACORN's criminality and fraud . . . no reasonable observer could suppose that such severe action would have been taken in the absence of a conclusion that misconduct occurred." The court pointed to numerous statements made by Senators, including the bill's primary sponsor (Sen. Johanns), in which they anointed themselves judge and jury to declare ACORN guilty of crimes with which they had not even been charged, let alone convicted. Relying on Lovett -- which held unconstitutional a Congressional act banning specified individuals from government employment based on the unadjudicated finding that they had "subversive beliefs" and "subversive associations" -- Judge Gershon explained that under clear Supreme Court law: "the discretionary nature of government funding does not foreclose a finding that Congress has impermissibly singled out plaintiffs for punishment."

Events like this provide an important reminder about how crucial and well-crafted the Constitution is. Though rarely invoked, the ban on "bills of attainder" is no technical or legalistic right; it's vital. Allowing Congress -- rather than courts -- to pass judgment on parties' guilt and then punish them for it is to circumvent all of the due process rights guaranteed in a judicial proceeding. It virtually ensures that, as happened here, guilt will be imposed due to political passions and a lynch mob mentality rather than a careful and fair examination of evidence. It also leaves weak and unpopular parties far more vulnerable to punishment. The fact that groups far more powerful than ACORN have actually been found guilty of serious wrongdoing yet have never been de-funded by Congress -- particularly defense contractors -- illustrates that danger.

The reasons the Founders barred such bills of attainder are perfectly highlighted by the ACORN case. During the reign of abusive Kings, it was a favorite instrument for enabling unpopular parties to be convicted, punished and deprived without benefit of a trial. Under the Constitution, parties aren't supposed to be found guilty of wrongdoing as a result of a Fox-News-led witch hunt joined by cowardly members of Congress. The recent finding of the Massachusetts Attorney General that ACORN had not committed crimes in connection with the notorious prostitution videos underscores the danger of the state's assuming someone's guilt outside of the judicial process. Congress is especially ill-suited to pass judgment on whether a particular party has violated the law, as they are far more likely to protect the powerful and popular and punish the weak and unpopular (which is one reason, incidentally, why it was wrong for Congress to retroactively immunize rich and powerful telecoms based on the consummately judicial finding that they acted in "good faith" when violating eavesdropping laws).

Yesterday's ACORN decision also highlights how crucial is the Constitution's separation of powers. Unlike members of Congress, whose need to be re-elected renders them unwilling to resist irrational majoritarian mobs, Judge Gershon is a federal judge with life tenure who can much more easily ignore those considerations. Even so, when a federal judge vindicates the Constitutional rights of a highly unpopular party, it is still courageous; a ruling like this can affect the judge's prospects for appointment to a higher court and can subject her to intense attacks, as is certainly going to happen here. But being constitutionally immunized from the whims of the political process enables a federal judge to safeguard the core liberties of even vulnerable and unpopular parties in a way that the political branches simply will not do. As the cowards in Congress rushed without a trial to unconstitutionally punish ACORN on a very bipartisan basis, Judge Gershon was able to ignore the lynch mob and dispassionately apply well-settled legal principles to safeguard core liberties.

There is an endless list of radical flaws in our political system, including our judicial branch. But in those rare cases when things actually work the way they're designed to, it's worth reminding ourselves of why the Constitution is such a vital document and why it's so crucial that it be adhered to and defended.

UPDATE: As always happens whenever there is a judicial decision that undermines the Right's political interests, there are going to be hordes of right-wing polemicists marching forth to denounce this ruling as "judicial activism." They're already starting. These are people won't bother to read a single word or case about "bills of attainder," but overnight, they're self-proclaimed legal scholars on this Constitutional prohibition and are in a position to criticize the Judge's ruling as legally erroneous. Of course, the only thing they really know is that they hate ACORN and therefore dislike the outcome of this case. In other words, they're denouncing the decision for reasons having nothing to do with law and everything to do with their own political beliefs and outcome preferences -- i.e., they're advocating, as usual, for the consummate act of outcome-based "judicial activism" which they endlessly claim to oppose.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...inion/greenwald

[slim 1,533]

What I find simply amazing about all this is nobody says anything when Congress appropriates funding for anyone. There's no problem when over 5,000 earmarks are included in a single bill.

However, when one organization raises a stink about their money getting cut off (not just ACORN, everyone) all the sudden it becomes a huge legal battle.

On the point of the OP, ACORN is right, the law is the law and it's on their side. However, I wonder why they didn't argue so hard against their initial and subsequent annual funding since it also came out of Congress. Why didn't they step up and say, "why would the federal government give us money? Where does it say in the Constitution we should get money for things?" I don't remember them, or anyone else for that matter, ever saying that.