House Ban on Acorn Grants Is Ruled Unconstitutional

The New York Times ^ | 12-11-09 | JANIE LORBER

[FOXFANVOX]

This is, to me, an absurd ruling. While I don't have a legal degree, I do have common sense. Money is paid or not paid based on both performance and perception all the time. I would like to see a further exploration of whether or not this instance qualifies as a “bill of attainder”.

And to say it requires the DOJ to first take action seems to ignore that the DOJ is in cahoots with ACORN. [Consider their “tepid” effort at prosecution of the union thugs at the polling place in PHL.]

Lastly, where was the judiciary when the Obama administration abrogated the long standing legal concept that bondholders get paid first. In true “Chicago politics” style, the bondholders’ money was given to the unions in the Detroit auto bankruptcies.

In my 68 years, I have never seen this much federal corruption! [And, I have seen a lot.]

[OldPossum]

“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.”

I was scrolling through the posts, waiting until I found yours since I know this to be true. Congratulations.

It is there under Article III, Section 2.

[sig226]

That accepts ACORN’s “interpretation” of the constitution. A bill of attainder is not something that does “irreperable harm.” Lots of things do that. A bill of attainder penalizes a named person, in this case an organization, without benefit of a trial. Having their allowance taken away may do irreperable harm, but that’s just too bad for them. They’re not facing a fine and they’re not facing even a minute in custody. It is not the power of the judicial branch to dictate how the legislature must dispense its purse, or not. The courts have no business here. ACORN can go beg George Soros for money to run whores and bribe politicians.

[ConservativeTeen]

Sadly, courts have determined that there exists some Constitutional right to entitlement. In Goldberg v. Kelly it was determined that a person had to have a judicial hearing before their welfare payments could be taken away. They tried to compare the taking of entitlements with the taking of property, thereby creating due process implications. The longer I am in law school, the more I hate our judicial system.

[Pete98]

So now it looks like Congress is forbidden from ever defunding any social program? Or will this only apply to liberal programs?

Democrats and the liberal judges aren’t even bothering to hide their contempt for Americans anymore. They’re just jeering right in our faces that they can do whatever they please and we can’t touch them.

[TigersEye]

I have had trouble believing that it is Constitutional to fund an organization like ACORN that is explicitly involved in the electoral process and undeniably a partisan player.

[stephenjohnbanker]

When I was a freshman at Boston College, my goal was to get into a major law school. By the time I graduated, I had grown to hate lawyers. ;-)

Good luck with law school. We need you in there fighting the good fight.