Skip to comments.House Ban on Acorn Grants Is Ruled Unconstitutional
Posted on 12/11/2009 7:22:05 PM PST by GOP_Lady
WASHINGTON The federal government must continue to provide grant money to the national community organizing group Acorn, a federal court ruled Friday, saying that the House violated the Constitution when it passed a resolution barring the group from receiving federal dollars.
A judge at the United States District Court in Brooklyn issued a preliminary injunction that nullifies the resolution and requires the government to honor existing contracts with the group and review its applications for new grants unless the Obama administration appeals the decision.
The court ruled that the resolution amounted to a bill of attainder, a legislative determination of guilt without trial, because it specifically punishes one group.
That provision plays a crucial, but rarely necessary, role in maintaining the balance of powers, said Eric M. Freedman, a professor of constitutional law at Hofstra Law School. It says that the Congress may not act as judge, jury and executioner. That is precisely what the Congress sought to do in this case, and the district court was entirely right to enjoin it.
In the opinion, Judge Nina Gershon wrote of Acorn, They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Victory for the corrupt left-wingers.
That is the most twisted interpretation of a bill of attainder I have ever read. If congress refuses to continue funding something, they are punishing them after the fact.
Where was this judge when congress refused to fund Reagan’s military budget?
ACORN and their attorneys obviously ‘judge shopped’ and picked the venue/judge who’d be most favorable to them. For a judge to override another equal branch of govt is cause alone for an appeal.
Don’t federal contracts have a rescission for cause clause in them? If not, the k writer missed law school. The cause would be the illegal acts of ACORN shown in various videos.
ACORN did not judge shop. They went to the judge that Obama, Pelosi, and Reed told them to. This was part of the deal that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama made with ACORN after the videos broke.
Lack of reward is not punishment. But of course the corrupt judge new that.
Dongress gives and Congress takes away.
To do otherwise would be an abrogation of their duty, thus it would be....unconstitutional.
I have feeling this judge has a colorful record.
Seems odd to me that companies would be protected from bills of attainder, and not just natural persons, but is there even any case law on this?
NY Times’ take on the issue.
So now, ACORN is federally funded in perpetuity, by court order? We can never defund them. Because it’s unconstitutional. Oh, this is rich. The words “absurd result” come to mind.
I wonder how many whore houses ACORN runs - they seems to know a lot of tricks... (no pun intended).
I guess ACORN is buried somewhere in the Constitution.
This explains it all: Nina Gershon (born 1940 in Chicago, Illinois) is a federal district judge in the Eastern District of New York. She was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 at the recommendation of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
They will have a much harder time with the appeals court.
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.