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.”
Maybe Congress shouldn’t be giving money to ANY organization (at least non-business ones).
...and without ACORN how in hell are we ever going to win a close election again???
That is a Due Process Clause violation, and not a Bill of Attainder violation.
Very informative - thanks.
The brouhaha over the would be targets of the McCarthy Congress apparently had the court deciding they were deprived of the right to be employed by the State Department. The right to get a grant would be more nebulous.
He has no point. This is not a bill of attainder. While I am not sure Congress really has the constitutional authority to fund groups like ACORN, we clearly operate on the assumption that it does.
That being the case, Congress has the authority to fund or defund organizations as it sees fit.
If a defense contractor is caught on tape making bribes or offering to sell secrets to foreign powers would a trial be needed before that company could be cut off?
If Congress simply decides to end a particular social program or change the means of operating it, would the organizations losing funding have the right to a trial first? Of course not.
Nadler is a defender of those who would facilitate sex slavery , involving children, not a defender of the Constitution!
It’s not a bill of attainder.
Cutting off government funding is not a punishment because no one has a right to government funds.
ACORN is still free to get funding from alternative sources and the government is not prohibiting them from doing so.
***
Exactly - Nadler is a Nad ...
Under his reasoning - once the government funds something, they cannot pull it back.
Bull Hockey !!!
Otherwise, Obama couldn’t yank the rug out from under the F-22 and the missles in Poland and the Czech Republic ...
It would take Nadler to be brass faced about this. Is there anyone more sexually evil in the Congress?
Billybob? Does Nadler have a nad to stand on?
Nadler isn’t a moonbat he’s 100% commie. How can it be Constitutional for the government to fund with the people’s money a partisan political organization? Now demonstrably criminal in its conduct around the country.
Not only that, the law targeted them as known individuals.
The only fair thing to do is stop all taxpayer subsidies to these kinds of organizations.
In fact - just end all federal subsidies, bailouts, price supports and all other underhanded ways of spreading the wealth to organizations and businesses.
After that we can get started on ending wealth redistribution to the able body moocher class.
Who named ACORN to get grants in the first place? If this was in a bill passed by Congress, then Congress can repeal it and that’s that. If this was strictly an executive-side decision, things could be stickier.
If not, could this establish precedent to be used against us at some point?
No, Conservative organizations don’t go around sucking on the unconstitutional teat.
It ain’t a “bill of attainder” unless the offense asserted is a “capital” offense — especially treason — AND the punishment inflicted includes execution ( i.e., Death ) as a result of the specific bill.
Look it up. I did ... E.g., see http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-attainder
[ snip ]
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the British Parliament often employed enactments called bills of attainder to inflict the death penalty on persons deemed guilty of seditious acts, such as attempting to overthrow the government. In addition to the death sentence, a bill of attainder usually carried with it a “corruption of blood,” which meant that the attainted party’s property could not pass to his heirs.
If the bill imposed a punishment short of death, such as banishment, confiscation of goods, or loss of the right to vote, it was called a bill of pains and penalties. These two kinds of bills were not restricted to England. During the American Revolution, the legislatures of many states enacted bills of attainder or bills of pains and penalties against persons deemed guilty of disloyalty to the American cause.
[ snip ]
A special legislative enactment that imposes a death sentence without a judicial trial upon a particular person or class of persons suspected of committing serious offenses, such as treason or a felony.
A bill of attainder is prohibited by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution because it deprives the person or persons singled out for punishment of the safeguards of a trial by jury.
[ me again ... ]
Barring government funds to a specific named individual or group, for whatever reason, MAY somehow be defective in law but Nadler and anyone concurring with his addled POV could not possibly be much further afield.
I believe we need to be firmly grounded in reality and not get carelessly caught up in the rhetorical flourishes and gimmicks of the opposition.
I don’t believe the amendment Nadler is addressing is wrong in concept or in law. In any case, it ain’t what he’s trying to make us think it is ...
21stCenturion
well. Foriegn Policy is what will get us killed. Domestic Communism will just make us broke.
Point to the part of the constitution that allows congress to hire an agent to enroll non-existent voters and manage the census for us.
“Nadler is a Communist agent.”
If you were obese, ugly and stupid, you too might be a communist ;-)
Actually, it (my example) is neither. It’d be an Equal Protection Clause violation. And I never said my example was a bill of attainder.
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.