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.”
Of course they can, Congress has the pwoer of the purse. Elections matter, we lost they fund whoever the hell they please. Or defund as is the case.
Yeah; why didn’t the Waddler complain about the un-Constitutional debt piled on the taxpayers for the NAMED Big Auto companies (the Union Bailout called Porkulus), where GM and Chrysler were NAMED and bailed out with Taxpayer Money? HMMMMMM????
I don’t think there’s a whole lot of “there” there in Nadler’s argument.
This is what “legislating” is -— basically, funding oganizations/projects etc. that are “liked” and refusing to fund those that are “disliked.”
It’s the legislators’ duty to evaluate the evidence against the organization and determine its credibility balanced against the “value” of the organization to the public. So, yes, such a decision process could be abused at any time, but I don’t see that as anything beyond normal.
Obviously, most congresscritters did not have any trouble accepting that the ACORN tapes were faithful recordings of some bad stuff, not some “purported screw-ups.”
Nadler still looks like “Pizza the Hut”.
Former Sen. Al D’Amato often referred to Nadler as “The Waddler”.
Gee, I thought leftwing revolutionary types like Nadler were supposed to be starved and skinny due to the evils of capitalism.
I have to add to my post UP that I am very proud that our side will listen to arguments such as Nadler has made and evaluate them.
If a non-profit is found to be political, do they have to pay back taxes and penalties?
“Funding Acorn in the first place may be unconstitutional.” Now you just hit a grand slam!
Maybe, just maybe the US Government should not fund any non-profit. For what purpose does it fund any of them? And how do they select which ones to fund now? Just favorite ones, or all of them. And to what extent do they fund them?
So cut government funding to every “private” or non-profit organization, across the board.
Suits me! No favorites, none specialed out. Cut ‘em all, the quicker the better! At least 70% or more of what the fedgov does is unconstitutional anyway. This would at least be a start in the right direction.
Correction:
“I say we pass a bill that will defund any agency that is receiving federal money.”
Just how could it be Unconstitutional to not give government money to any organization at all? What Article or Amendment gives ACORN a tap on the Treasury?
I'll go you one better, let's defund Congress and the White House!
To all those worried about this setting bad precedent that could be turned against us: Name ONE conservative organization being federally funded how ACORN is/was. Just ONE. There aren’t any, so this cannot be turned against us.
No, this is not unconstitutional. The money is not ACORN’s, it is the federal government’s. The executive pay controversy is not applicable. This bill is about denying future subsidies. ACORN has no right to future government money.
Disrupting special status for some group is not punishing them; it is ceasing to favor them.
“ACORN is still free to get funding from alternative sources and the government is not prohibiting them from doing so.”
More than that, nothing is being taken away from ACORN, so far as I know. They’re not being asked to return money they’ve already received, right? We’re just promising not ot give them anything more, that’s all.
“So it’s ok to single out CEOs based on their income and limit their paychecks but it’s not ok to defund an organization that has how many criminal investigations against it?”
Actually, it’s ther other way around. CEOs were entitled to their money because the company had already received it, no strings attached, by the time the government got around to attempting to break contracts. ACORN does not deserve what is being taken away by this bill because the government can give or not give money at its discretion.
Sounds excellent.
Where was Nadler when his party’s leadership was proposing tax legislation specifically aimed at the insurance company executives?
“but the more general issue of giving congress this kind of power over a private organization”
What are you talking about? All Congress would be asserting with this bill is their power over our money. They’re not taking anything away from ACORN, and though they may be publicly humiliating the organization, I guess, it’s ACORN’s fault for being a barnacle on the side of the Big Ship Government, and putting themselves in this position.
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.