FReep mail me if you want on/off the list.
Posted on 09/18/2009 3:19:16 PM PDT by Uncledave
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, denounced a Republican Amendment adopted by the House of Representatives to deny all federal funds to ACORN as blatantly unconstitutional and a threat to unpopular organizations everywhere. The Republican initiative, entitled the Defund ACORN Act, singles out a specific organization by name for exclusion from participating in any federal program, in direct violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against Bills of Attainder.
“Today’s Republican Amendment is in blatant violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against Bills of Attainder,” said Nadler. “Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial, and that’s what this Amendment does. Whatever one may think of an organization, the Constitution’s clear ban on Bills of Attainder is there for the protection of all of our liberties.”
The Supreme Court, in decisions dating back to the Civil War era, has held that the Constitution prohibits all 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 judicial trial….” During the McCarthy era, for example, Congress enacted legislation prohibiting the use of funds to pay the salaries of three federal employees who Congress deemed subversive. The Supreme Court ruled this legislation unconstitutional as a Bill of Attainder.
This Amendment, in addition to being clearly unconstitutional, sets a dangerous precedent of Congress punishing politically disfavored groups without any due process.
As Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee charged with defending the Constitution, Nadler spoke out on the House floor against the Republican Amendment, delivering the following statement:
“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A little while ago, the House passed an amendment to the bill that we were considering that says no contract or federal funds may ever go to ACORN, a named organization, or to any individual or organization affiliated with ACORN. Unfortunately, this was done in the spirit of the moment and nobody had the opportunity to point out that this is a flat violation of the Constitution, constituting a Bill of Attainder. The Constitution says that Congress shall never pass a Bill of Attainder. Bills of Attainder, no matter what their form, apply either to a named individual or to easily ascertainable members of a group, to inflict punishment. That’s exactly what this amendment does.
“It may be that ACORN is guilty of various infractions, and, if so, it ought to be vetted, or maybe sanctioned, by the appropriate administrative agency or by the judiciary. Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial.
“That’s what this Amendment did. It is flatly prohibited by the Constitution, and once we ignore the Constitution we ignore constitutional principles. Whatever one may think of the subject matter or the organization, the Constitution and the ban on Bills of Attainder are there for the protection of all of our liberties. It is unfortunate that we passed this, and I hope it is removed in the conference committee.”
Exactly. Criminals. Period. Let’s PLEASE not get pulled into liberal never-Never land.
Now that's an interesting angle to pursue.
I don't doubt that Nadler's a commie like many here are saying. Nevertheless we gotta play this smart. I don't know if the proposed GOP anti-ACORN bill is a Bill of Attainder or not, but we need to follow the Constitution first and foremost. And we need a way to prevent organizations like this from getting federal money. I think the avenue is aggressive investigations from state attny generals (since Holder won't due squat).
Nadler is still nutty as a moonbat. A bill of attainder involves punishment. The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the Constitution clearly provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;” and NO ONE has a right to a government grant ~ that is, it isn’t a punishment to be denied an expenditure ~ PLUS, they, the Supreme Court cannot draw money from the Treasury ~ etc.
ACORN has violated federal law in several areas, specifically by requiring membership dues and political actioneering while maintaining a non-profit status and receiving federal funds. These are the areas we should be pursuing them on, as the law is fairly cut-and-dried and the violations are clear and widespread.
The bill to defund them should not only be pursued, it should be passed. Let them fight it in court after being defunded... just as any liberal political organization would let conservatives twist after passing something unconstitutional. Where was Fatler on the banking takeover, socializing healthcare, campaign finance and caps on salaries in the banking industry? (crickets)
“Is such a bill specifically targeting one organization indeed a Bill of Attainder? Are we setting up a situation where a judge could, perhaps rightfully, throw this out? If not, could this establish precedent to be used against us at some point? I could easily envision a scenario where a liberal activist catches some purported screw-up in a sting on a conservative organization and a dem congress uses the acorn precedent to defund them - or worse.”
I have similar concerns: not just the “sauce for the goose” argument, but the more general issue of giving congress this kind of power over a private organization. But I’m no lawyer. To any who are, a couple questions: Are there any laws on the books authorizing government cooperation with a specific private entity? I’m thinking here of no-bid contracts and such. Also, is there any way to craft a law that avoids this problem, but still denies funds to ACORN?
The government shouldn’t be financing any organization...including PBS.
This just means you can't do business with a organization convicted of a crime. Surely that's already in the funding fine print somewhere?
If he is correct - and he may very well be on the LETTER of the law - then it is obvious that the reverse is also true. If Congress has voted to fund an organization by name, then that is also a Bill of Attainder. Then in that instance, undoing a wrong is NOT a crime.
Turnabout is indeed fair play.
There; fixed it. The government has no business funding ANY non-government group or individual.
No entity is entitled to taxpayer dollars. Deciding not to provide public funding is constitutional unless done for a reason independently barred by another provision, e.g., “no blacks get money.”
FReep mail me if you want on/off the list.
Also, a Bill of Attainder is a legal action, not an administrative one. Congress passing a bill specifically to fine ACORN or seize their property would be an example of a Bill of Attainder; however, as it is Congress who funds ACORN, they can withdraw funding if they deem it an appropriate action.
OK, that makes sense to me.
Why hasn’t any other Rat come forward with this claim — not even the Witch Pelosi?
Nadler approves of giving tax-payer dollars to criminal organizations like ACORN. Have just one more wafer-thin mint, Mr. Nadler.
If Bummer signs off on this, it’s probably moot. Bummer would have the authority to hire/fire agencies if the Congress didn’t.
Where in the Constitution does it say that you can use public money for political purposes?
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."
They are not being deprived of anything but taxpyer money which they have not entitlyemnt to receive, except by the largesse of the government.
Old Jerry is getting all "constitutional" on us.....next thing ya know he'll even start dieting and stop eating small children with those fries....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.