Judge strikes ban on funding ACORN

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
Constitutional scholarship and common sense has returned to at least one federal judge.

March 10, 2010, New York, NY

Today a federal judge, for the second time, granted an injunction against Congress’ unconstitutional de-funding of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to apply to federal budget provisions signed into law by President Obama in December 2009, and ordered the United State of America and several named agencies to rescind orders cutting off funding to ACORN and its affiliates and allies.

A preliminary injunction was won in December 2009 in the Center for Constitutional Rights’ (CCR) case charging Congress with violating the U.S. Constitution’s protections against Bills of Attainder and the First and Fifth Amendments in several recurring resolutions. Today’s opinion extends that protection by ordering a permanent injunction and directing agency heads to disregard the provisions denying funding and to rescind the memos that implemented the Congressional action.

http://www.ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/judge-strikes-down-congressional-ban-funding-acorn
 
Seems like nonsense. Acorn has no property right in the funds Congress chooses to give them. So they have no right to due process if Congress chooses not to fund them. I could understand that Congress maybe should not be able to deny funds already promised, but Congress certainly has the power to stop funding them in new budgets.
 
RStringfield said:
Seems like nonsense. Acorn has no property right in the funds Congress chooses to give them. So they have no right to due process if Congress chooses not to fund them. I could understand that Congress maybe should not be able to deny funds already promised, but Congress certainly has the power to stop funding them in new budgets.
Click to expand...

I agree. This means that we will never be able to trim budgets because this precedent shows that the fundee has the power, not the entity doing the funding.
 
This is the typical liberal tactic. When Congress does something right, find a lone federal judge to find it unconstitutional. Why don't conservatives use the same tactic with laws that actually are unconstitutional?
 
This judge needs to be impeached, then tried, convicted, and executed for treason.

the judicial branch does NOT determine what money is spent where. that is specifically the responsibility and duty of the congress, via the constitution.
 
Exactly. Obviously this judge knows nothing about the Constitution.

SmarterThanYou said:
This judge needs to be impeached, then tried, convicted, and executed for treason.

the judicial branch does NOT determine what money is spent where. that is specifically the responsibility and duty of the congress, via the constitution.
Click to expand...
 
Actually, the ban was unconstitutional. Not only did the ban cover ACORN, but other groups that associated with them on projects.


The problem, it seems, is that Congress declared the organization guilty of a crime and punished them without any due process.

It doesn't necessarily mean ACORN will receive funding. It just means the ban placed on them is unconstitutional.
 
WinterBorn said:
I agree. This means that we will never be able to trim budgets because this precedent shows that the fundee has the power, not the entity doing the funding.
Click to expand...

ACORN represented a trivial percentage of the budget.

If you aren't cutting medicare, medicaid, SS, the defense department, or raising taxes you are essentially budget peackocking and have no real solutions for our problems.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
This judge needs to be impeached, then tried, convicted, and executed for treason.
Click to expand...

You need to be executed for treason. For having no respect for the constitution except where it seems to benefit you politically (in this case by keeping the blax from voting), for supporting this obvious bill of attainder, you definitely need to be tried for treason and executed in the most painful way possible, and all of your supporters. Justice is sweet.
 
Every person who voted for the ACORN defunding bill should be executed for treason.

This judge should be immediately promoted to chief justice of the US, after we've impeached and executed the traitors Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas for their disgraceful treason against America, unprecedented in history.
 
The funny and disturbing thing is that SMY is essentially like a conservative me who's not joking. Most conservatives are a conservative version of me who's not joking.
 
Bittermark said:
Every person who voted for the ACORN defunding bill should be executed for treason.

This judge should be immediately promoted to chief justice of the US, after we've impeached and executed the traitors Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas for their disgraceful treason against America, unprecedented in history.
Click to expand...

 
I read the ruling. Here it is...

http://ccrjustice.org/files/ACORN v US, 3.10.2010 Opinion and Order.pdf

The judge uses good reasoning, but I still do not fully agree. ACORN acknowledges, they have no right to a grant or contract from the government. Therefore, denying funding cannot be punishment since it does not deprive ACORN of any rights.

Also, unless I am mistaken, a court could not prohibit funding. Only congress can do that. But to do so, under this ruling, would be a bill of attainder whether a court found ACORN guilty of wrongdoing or not.

IMO, this ruling violates the separation of powers the bill of attainder clause is meant to protect.
 
christiefan915 said:
Constitutional scholarship and common sense has returned to at least one federal judge.

March 10, 2010, New York, NY

Today a federal judge, for the second time, granted an injunction against Congress’ unconstitutional de-funding of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to apply to federal budget provisions signed into law by President Obama in December 2009, and ordered the United State of America and several named agencies to rescind orders cutting off funding to ACORN and its affiliates and allies.

A preliminary injunction was won in December 2009 in the Center for Constitutional Rights’ (CCR) case charging Congress with violating the U.S. Constitution’s protections against Bills of Attainder and the First and Fifth Amendments in several recurring resolutions. Today’s opinion extends that protection by ordering a permanent injunction and directing agency heads to disregard the provisions denying funding and to rescind the memos that implemented the Congressional action.

http://www.ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/judge-strikes-down-congressional-ban-funding-acorn
Click to expand...


Here's the thing: Acorn's entire heirarchy should be replaced as to avoid another incident where a case of embezzlement is covered by a relative in a higher position and subsequently NOT reported to the proper authorities until the whistle is blown.

That being said, there are currently new versions of Acorn forming all over the country...so the GOP will really have to cheat it's ass off if they want to sweep back into office, because that dependency on low voter turnout is getting a little shaky!
 
Question for the lefties... If corporate personhood is improper for Constitutional protections, including the 14th amendment, then how is it that ACORN enjoys any right to due process?
 
I expect that if a defense contractor is barred from bidding on a government contract due to overcharging the government on a parts contract, they should contact this judge to get themselves reinstated, neh?........
 
RStringfield said:
Question for the lefties... If corporate personhood is improper for Constitutional protections, including the 14th amendment, then how is it that ACORN enjoys any right to due process?
Click to expand...

I ain't no lawyer, but I presume this is a case involving contract law, not civil rights. I can't recall ever in my life hearing any lefty say that a company or entity can't sue in court to enforce a contracts, or on the basis of contractual law.

As far as I know contract law has been standard practice in the United States for over 200 years.

Is contract law on the same level as freedom of speech or freedom of religion? Just trying to clarify. Was that your point?

U.S. District Judge Nina Gerson said Wednesday that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it tried to stop federal funding of the troubled group last fall.

In her ruling, she said it was "unmistakable that Congress determined ACORN's guilt before defunding it. ACORN alone was singled out for adverse treatment."

She said there is a process when federal contractors can be suspended or cut off and that wasn't followed.

Fox news
Click to expand...
 
Never mind. I should just know to wait to find out the legal details of a case, before getting sucked into a thread where some posters read an article for two minutes and then render a conclusive, supposedly expert judgment.

This is something to do with bill of attainders. Attainders are from Article 1 of the Constitution.

ARTICLE 1: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Click to expand...

I doubt this is as simple as some arm chair-expert exercise based on the bill of rights. presumably this is a much more complex legal judgment, than I was led to believe by skimming this thread.

Damn, I know better than to trust the snap judgments, guesses, and speculations from some message board posters.

Judge Nina Gershon cemented a decision from last year that such action amounted to an unconstitutional “bill of attainder.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top