Judge strikes ban on funding ACORN

Cypress said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, it's civil rights. You could make the argument that civil rights are not primary because Congress overstepped its legitimate powers in passing a bill of attainder. But the bill of attainder clause is, obviously, there to protect rights to due process.
 
The right to due process is on par with speech and religion. How is it that ACORN even has a right to bring suit against the Feds on the grounds of a constitutional violation if the constitution does not apply to them?
 
Cypress said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

I read the ruling. My initial reaction did not change much from reading the opinion because I was correct that ACORN's lack of property rights is a primary consideration in bill of attainder judgments. You were the one, who went way off base, spouting off about contract law.

Still, if the constitution does not apply to corporations then it does not apply. Corporations would have virtually no standing to bring suit, especially when they were denied something to which they were never entitled.
 
No worries. Nothing personal, at this point, based on the information available, I don't accept your premise that this ruling exposes "liberal hypocrsiy" or is in any way some validation of corporate personhood with regard to the bill of rights.

The information I've seen indicated the ruling is based on the bill of attainder clause in Article One of the Constitution. What the government did was unconstitutional by applying a bill of retainder to ACORN. And yes, bill of retainders are indeed applicable to groups, entities, or companies as far as I can tell.


In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group


http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ATTAINDER
Click to expand...

So, in fact I can't accept charges of "liberal hypocrisy" on the basis of easily available information.

I personally am broadly familiar with contract law. And the government cannot issue or deprive companies or entities of valid government contracts on an arbitrary or capricious basis. I'm not sure if that standard applies in this case, but the bill of attainder Congress based with respect to ACORN certainly seems to fit the definition of a bill of retainder, and it is quite possibly seems arbitrary and capricious.
 
Cypress said:
No worries. Nothing personal, at this point, based on the information available, I don't accept your premise that this ruling exposes "liberal hypocrsiy" or is in any way some validation of corporate personhood with regard to the bill of rights.

The information I've seen indicated the ruling is based on the bill of attainder clause in Article One of the Constitution. What the government did was unconstitutional by applying a bill of retainder to ACORN. And yes, bill of retainders are indeed applicable to groups, entities, or companies as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

So corporations are legal persons for the purpose of the constitution? If not then why would they have standing in federal court?

Non-corporate groups or companies have standing as individuals, not as legal persons. You can argue for legal personhood or not, but I fail to see why we should be concerned with a corporations due process rights and not their rights to free speech.

So, in fact I can't accept charges of "liberal hypocrisy" on the basis of easily available information.

I personally am broadly familiar with contract law. And the government cannot issue or deprive companies or entities of valid government contracts on an arbitrary or capricious basis. I'm not sure if that standard applies in this case, but the bill of attainder Congress based with respect to ACORN certainly seems to fit the definition of a bill of retainder, and it is quite possibly seems arbitrary and capricious.
Click to expand...

But this had nothing to do with contracts on which there had been previous agreements. The government did not claim a right to void those contracts. Also, ACORN agreed that the government was meeting its obligations on all previous contracts or grants.

If it were an issue I would agree with you, because one does have a property right in contracts. But it was not at issue. Read the ruling if you don't believe me.
 
They are guilty of nothing and the asshole who defrauded them and tried to ruin their reputation is going to prison.

The right just hates it when poor people are helped in this country.
 
Okeefe is going to end up in prison.

He defrauded them and them defrauded the congresswomans office.

The guy is a liar and an asshole.

It wont matter to you ,you lap lies up like paplum.
 
Does it constitute a Bill of Attainder? The case law on the issue is inconclusive.

WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
They dont care about fairness in the law.

They torture when it meets their political needs.

They ignore the history of our county and how we stood against such evil in WWII.

They attack science when it proves them liars.

They even deny we are a democracy when it fits their stupid point of view.
 
christiefan915 said:
Suppose it wasn't ACORN. Suppose funding for Israel was being cut off. What would be your comment then?
Click to expand...

I don't think that is a very good example, if you agree with this ruling. Obviously, congress may deny funding to foreign states for whatever reason it chooses. I don't think even this judge would claim that as a bill of attainder.
 
Desh, if this is a democracy then WHY would you argue against this action by the most democratic branch of our government? On what basis should an appointed judge be able to overrule elected representatives of the people in a democracy?

You apparently have a very strange definition of democracy. Could you tell us what it is?
 
evince said:
Because they did it without due process.

This organization was punished for false charges.
Click to expand...

Then you agree that there is a limit on the will of the majority. Due process is such a limit. If by democracy you mean limited majority rule then you mean republic. If you want to call that a democracy, okay. I still don't see why you would object to calling it by its more appropriate term, but whatever. A rose is a rose by any other name.
 
The right's hatred and slander of an organization like ACORN is simply amazing. The only real reason is that they want turnout to remain low so that they can continue to destroy America.
 
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...

Answer to rightie: Due process regarding businesses has always existed....they use to exist on a different legal level than the individual human citizen.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Suppose it wasn't ACORN. Suppose funding for Israel was being cut off. What would be your comment then?
Click to expand...
What? Are you saying that as long as we started funding something we can never take the money away? What exactly are you getting at? Congress could definitely decide to stop sending money to Israel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top