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 ...
When you blow up a balloon, it expands.
When you deflate the balloon it returns to normal, but not quite.
That is the point
We have to stop the courts or soon the legislature (the people) will mean nothing. (a Lefty wet dream)
That explains it.
He's on retainer.
They (Congtress) don’t need an Appeals Court. All they need to do is remove the Court’s jurisdiction in this matter, which they have the right to do.
‘judge shopping’ is just an expression lawyers use when they choose their venue/judge knowing they will get someone favorable to their cause. Theoretically the practice has been eliminated with ‘random’ computer selection of judges. I don’t know if the federal court in NY even has any conservatives or moderates.
There are other ways to cut off ACORN.
We are quickly heading for anarchy ... followed closely by open revolution. Judges like this one will soon reap the harvest of their corruption
Ruling something “against public policy” because of “social issues” is a catch all holding/ruling where judges can create new policy. I’ve at least learned that in my first semester of law school! lol. :)
I’m not a lawyer, but work for some (and not on TV), and I agree.
Congress doesn’t have the balls.
It’s time for Congress to reign in the Federal Courts..!
Sarcasm of course, but this is how new policy is created... in the cases I’ve read where the judge invokes “public policy” as the reasoning behind his/her ruling and then it goes from there...
Areyou F******G kidding me?? Federal funding is not a right its a GIFT. Deciding to not continue providing you your GIFT funded by other taxpayers does dot amount to a trial.
Suppose there were no allegation of criminality, and it was made on other grounds? Can that defunding be denied too? Do you have a right to fleece the Treasury the rest of your life??
This is judicial tyranny. It weakens our governmental system by calling it into disrepute.
Well, I’m also not a lawyer, and I didn’t play one on tv.
A bill of attainder is pretty much what the Times story described; a legislative prounouncement of guilt. Revoking government funding for some reason, even if the reason involves possibly criminal conduct, is not a finding of guilt. For instance, what if a contractor is found to be stealing during an audit or because of an informant? Must the government continue to give funds to the contractor while a trial is held?
Revoking funding has a history of use as a punishment, but is also dealt with separately in the Constitution. The compensation for judges shall not be diminished during their continuance in office per Article III. The president enjoys the same privilege in Article II.
The limits of legislative power in Article I include the prohibition on bills of attainder. It seems odd that the founders needed to include the parts about executive and judicial compensation if they believed that diminished compensation was part of a bill of attainder.
I was always taught that a bill of attainder was a legislative finding of guilt and imposition of punishment. Diminshed compensation may hurt, but it is not a punishment in the constitutional sense of the word. Punishment is revocation of status such as corporate, non profit, citizen, et cetera. Punishment includes fines, prison, or other involuntary mandates imposed by a government body. A fine is different from diminshed compensation. A fine means you have to give me what’s yours. Diminished compensation means I will no longer give you what’s mine.
Take this to the point of absurdity. Must there be a trial before the legislature can choose not to fund an organization? If the jury finds no crime, then the organization may receive funds in perpetuity.
I didn’t stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, either, but I did make William Kunstler’s protege, Ron Kuby, have an on air meltdown on WABC Radio while argiung U.S. v. Miller. :)
The historical and core concept of a “bill of attainder” was the sovereign (such as the King of England) creating post hoc laws or criminal charges, without right to trial, in order to deprive a particular PERSON of their liberty, property, and/or their very life.
Now, in the Orwellian world of liberal jurisprudence, we are at a point where an elected legislature cannot decide about eligibility for *public funding* from all taxpayers!?
The ACORN cesspool scum now have a “right” to our tax dollars just as though it’s their own legitimate “property”
The burden should be on ACORN to demonstrate their suitability for public trust.... IT’S NOT THEIR MONEY.
(although in the world of liberalism everything is up for grabs)
Yep. Congress has the power but they have no balls. Too bad.
Tonight Hannity had a special on 9/11 and the Kalid Sheik Mohammad trial. One of his guests, who was family of a casualty of 9/11, said 0bama's actions have been aid and comfort to the enemy. He outlined a list of actions 0bama has taken.
Hannity asked for a show of hands of those who agreed with that. All but one raised their hands in agreement. All but one of those 9/11 family members and first responders agreed that 0bama is a traitor.
I think that says it. I sure don't disagree.
This is freaking insane.
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.
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.