Posted on 04/13/2010 12:36:57 PM PDT by Nachum
Some weeks ago the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal of U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon’s (absurd) ruling on ACORN funding.
Gershon issued a permanent injunction against the U.S. government forbidding it from defunding ACORN. She held that the cutoff of funding to ACORN constituted an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
The list, ping
ACORN in perpetuity.....
Judicial Watch Announces List of
“Ten Most Corrupt Politicians” for 2009
You can bet the White House Regime is not . . . pleased.
Now, if Judicial Watch would actually accomplish something...
Then how can the government possibly not pay full value for any contract with any company?
Plus full value of award fees!
I emailed that to at least 100 friends and asked them to forward the link to their entire address lists. Spread this viral!
You made sense of all the negatives?
injunction, against, forbidding, defunding
No. Not a chance I would inadvertently understand that non-sense.
“They actually did the right thing?”
It’s just for looks. A lot of the Acorn groups have already changed their name anyway.
I think they may have had an ulterior motive for this. If the ACORN ruling is allowed to stand, the Democrats would not be able to likewise defund a future (Republican) President’s projects or wars, etc.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a WINNER!
Now, if Judicial Watch would actually accomplish something...
I sent Judicial Watch money in the mid ‘90’s when they were supposed to be going after Clinton and nothing ever came of it.
Their donations pay salaries and the overhead.
how the heck can they forbid defunding them?
they are defunding my moms home health hospice care...how can acorn still get funding.
Donate Now!
I wouldn’t be surprised if the judge had been helped by Acorn. You just can’t make this stuff up!!
Judical Watch is just $10 away from Impeaching President Clinton.
Donate Now!
Exactly right. I think Larry Clayman was running it then.
That’s when I learned NOT to get my hopes up.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
If this is valid, we have a long list of illegalities to set right, before we get to ACORN and its successors.
Bill Clinton's 1993 ex-post facto income tax increase.
The massive fine against smokers, paid through the tobacco companies.
The "progressive [what a prescient name!]" income tax structure.
"Temporary" telephone taxes which never went away.
We can probably identify dozens, if not hundreds of similar illegal real and damaging "punishments" passed by Congress.
But this starts the list.
Why isn’t Gershon being impeached?
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.