How Dems outmaneuvered GOP on ACORN

[Patranus]

Last time I checked Tiger Woods' sponsors aren't constrained by the US Constitution.

Where exactly did congress pass a law stating that ACORN was guilty of some crime and punishing them without a trail?

What section of the constitution entitled ACORN to taxpayer money?

 

[fskimospy]

Where exactly did congress pass a law stating that ACORN was guilty of some crime and punishing them without a trail?

What section of the constitution entitled ACORN to taxpayer money?

No section of the constitution entitled ACORN to taxpayer money, the Constitution only protects them from bills of attainder like this one.

As to where Congress punished ACORN without a trial, the defund ACORN act is exactly the subject of the judge's ruling. Not only did it prevent future funding from going to ACORN, but it removed funding already allocated based upon the allegations against ACORN that have not been proven in any court. It's the exact same thing as Congress passing a law saying that Patranus is losing your federally funded student loans that have already been allocated to you because a Congressman doesn't like you.

It is specifically enumerated in the Constitution that this is illegal, hence why the judge smacked it down.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No section of the constitution entitled ACORN to taxpayer money, the Constitution only protects them from bills of attainder like this one.

As to where Congress punished ACORN without a trial, the defund ACORN act is exactly the subject of the judge's ruling. Not only did it prevent future funding from going to ACORN, but it removed funding already allocated based upon the allegations against ACORN that have not been proven in any court. It's the exact same thing as Congress passing a law saying that Patranus is losing your federally funded student loans that have already been allocated to you because a Congressman doesn't like you.

It is specifically enumerated in the Constitution that this is illegal, hence why the judge smacked it down.

So in essence Congress is compelled to fund every organization unless there is a criminal conviction, because it could be considered a bill of attainder.

Hell we better not start any new programs because any organizations tied to them are entitled to funding in perpetuity.

 

[Patranus]

So in essence Congress is compelled to fund every organization unless there is a criminal conviction, because it could be considered a bill of attainder.

Hell we better not start any new programs because any organizations tied to them are entitled to funding in perpetuity.

Exactly what I was about to post.
The legislation did not declare the guilt of ACORN in any way shape or form.

 

[fskimospy]

So in essence Congress is compelled to fund every organization unless there is a criminal conviction, because it could be considered a bill of attainder.

Hell we better not start any new programs because any organizations tied to them are entitled to funding in perpetuity.

No, absolutely not. Have you guys even read the ruling or anything about it? It would appear not.

Congress never needs to fund ACORN again in the future if they choose not to, but the bill strips away funding already awarded, hence punishing the group without a trial.

This is super simple, and something everyone should be behind. If you don't like the government reaching too far into your life, having Congress reach over and punish you without a trial is one of the worst excesses I can think of.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So in essence Congress is compelled to fund every organization unless there is a criminal conviction, because it could be considered a bill of attainder.

Hell we better not start any new programs because any organizations tied to them are entitled to funding in perpetuity.

Seriously, has America become this dumb? Does anyone understand logic anymore?

Since when did a judge (upholding the constitution, which is something you right-wingers support right?) ruling that Congress can't prohibit funding suddenly equal Congress must fund every organization?

Jeez, there are alot of idiots around here. No wonder we suck so bad.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

What does being convicted of a crime have to do anything.
Look at Woods. He hasn't been convicted of anything yet sponsors are fleeing him left and right.
The judge simply ruled that ACORN is entitled to taxpayer money which is wrong.

And here is another clueless idiot. Read and learn:

1. Private corporation = can do anything they want, as long as it's legal. They are free to fund/de-fund anyone anytime they want. Are you seriously trying to compare a person with the federal government? Read what a bill of attainder is and educate yourself (hint: it applies to the gov, not private corps or private persons)

2. Again, total lack of comprehension and logic. Ruling that the gov cannot arbitrarily prohibit funding does not mean that they are entitled to it. Learn to read.

How is it these right wing trolls are so unable to read and comprehend news articles and court rulings? Are you just brainwashed or something by Rush/Hannity/etc? You can't be all be this dumb.

 

[Patranus]

No, absolutely not. Have you guys even read the ruling or anything about it? It would appear not.

Congress never needs to fund ACORN again in the future if they choose not to, but the bill strips away funding already awarded, hence punishing the group without a trial.

This is super simple, and something everyone should be behind. If you don't like the government reaching too far into your life, having Congress reach over and punish you without a trial is one of the worst excesses I can think of.

What crime was ACORN found guilty of by the passage of this legislation?

 

[fskimospy]

What crime was ACORN found guilty of by the passage of this legislation?

I'm so glad you see the light, as that's precisely the problem!

ACORN has been found guilty of nothing. The legislation did not serve a larger regulatory purpose outside of defunding ACORN, and therefore it's quite likely to qualify as a bill of attainder. Considering how much you shriek about the Constitution being disregarded in other threads, you would think that you would be very happy that a judge was enforcing it against Congressional overreach.

Or wait, do you only support the Constitution when it does things you like?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

What crime was ACORN found guilty of by the passage of this legislation?

None. Why are you not posting about how all of these corporations that still are getting funding from Congress?

Come on, speak up and tell us how these defense contractors, with billions of dollars of admitted misconduct of defrauding this country, shouldn't be allowed funding from Congress anymore.

Come on, we are all waiting.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Seriously, has America become this dumb? Does anyone understand logic anymore?

Since when did a judge (upholding the constitution, which is something you right-wingers support right?) ruling that Congress can't prohibit funding suddenly equal Congress must fund every organization?

Jeez, there are alot of idiots around here. No wonder we suck so bad.

I understand that when you were assigned to special education classes you believed it was an honor. It was not.

To dumb it down for you. There is something called equal protection. I'll let you google that, if you can find the hands at the end of your arms. Make sure to only use you Left hand.

Apparently the judge is saying that if Congress has committed funds, they must do so short of a criminal finding. If that holds true for ACORN then it would hold for any other organization or it would violate Equal Protection. You did look that up didn't you?

Let me guess, you are one of those simplistic people who categorizes people into Left and Right.

You shot yourself in the ass on that one. Why don't you find where I backed Bush and his abuses in the last term?

Oops, nope. Maybe some folks look at something an think it's wrong without checking first if it's on the Left or Right agenda.

Na, that would require independent thinking, something you've clearly decided against.

Now go away and pout, or not. Odie is calling you.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand that when you were assigned to special education classes you believed it was an honor. It was not.

To dumb it down for you. There is something called equal protection. I'll let you google that, if you can find the hands at the end of your arms. Make sure to only use you Left hand.

Apparently the judge is saying that if Congress has committed funds, they must do so short of a criminal finding. If that holds true for ACORN then it would hold for any other organization or it would violate Equal Protection. You did look that up didn't you?

Let me guess, you are one of those simplistic people who categorizes people into Left and Right.

You shot yourself in the ass on that one. Why don't you find where I backed Bush and his abuses in the last term?

Oops, nope. Maybe some folks look at something an think it's wrong without checking first if it's on the Left or Right agenda.

Na, that would require independent thinking, something you've clearly decided against.

Now go away and pout, or not. Odie is calling you.

That's not what the ruling said at all. He said that Congress has removed funding from an organization without larger regulatory purpose. That is a punishment, and therefore the bill is a bill of attainder.

Specifically see Article 1 Section 9: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Section_9

So yes, if Congress creates a bill of attainder for any other organization then the courts will have to vacate that too, but then again they were already obligated by the Constitution to do so.

 

[whylaff]

The “no-no” that Congress committed from a Constitutional law perspective in regards to bills of attainder is that they specifically named a group. Congress does not have the authority to adversely impact an individual person or narrow group of people. The same thing would have happened if Congress passed a bill confiscating the AIG bonuses. They could not specifically name AIG. The purpose of their legislation has to be broader. They could have easily accomplished the same task using broader language, someone just got lazy and retarded. Or, more likely, they didn’t want the broad legislation to impact their favorite organization someday. Or, even more likely, they knew this would happen, and wanted it to further the discussion of how horrible ACORN is.

Edit: I just wanted to add, the reason why they probably knew this would happen is most likely is because Congress is made up of a lot of lawyers. Most of this is covered in an undergraduate Constitutional Law course. The Bill of Attainder case law is rather concrete and specific. It is not changing anytime soon.

 

[Siddhartha]

Why should the 99% of the population that's not rabidly conservative give a fvck about ACORN? I'm hardly a flaming liberal, but this hard-on you have for them is stupid.

As far as I can tell, the real problem they have with ACORN is that this organization is involve with voter registration of poor people. Empowering the poor by giving them the vote really pisses off some people and they have been after ACORN since the 2008 election.

 

[whylaff]

As far as I can tell, the real problem they have with ACORN is that this organization is involve with voter registration of poor people. Empowering the poor by giving them the vote really pisses off some people and they have been after ACORN since the 2008 election.

The United States certainly does have a history of vices relating to voting restrictions. They have become less obvious over time, such as the ones that required your grandfather to have voted in order for you to be able to vote, which were in place after the abolishment of slavery.

 

[Pens1566]

There's some powerful stupid in this thread.

 

[umbrella39]

None. Why are you not posting about how all of these corporations that still are getting funding from Congress?

Come on, we are all waiting.

Oh that would just expose this junior ebt RNC hack for what he is. He'll just act more obtuse the more you expose him. Not worth the effort.

 

[werepossum]

What the hell are you talking about? You should be VERY happy the judge ruled this way as I can't think of a single clearer example of a bill of attainder in my entire life, and they are explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

Congress effectively declared ACORN guilty of crimes that had never been ruled on by any court, and then usurped the judiciary's power to impose a penalty on them, again with no trial. That's pretty much against everything the Constitution stands for, and people said from the very second they passed that anti-ACORN resolution that there was no way it would stand up in court, and rightly so.

It's not about whether you like ACORN or not, it's about whether you like the Constitution or not.

Thus we see the liberal agenda - if we don't fund the liberal machine, then we have imposed a penalty on them. ACORN is entitled to tax money, and any failure to fund them is anti-Constitutional. And if some individuals working for ACORN happen to be convicted of crimes (voter fraud and vandalism come to mind) in the course of their duties, why, that's not ACORN, that's just some misguided people who happen to work for them.

Man, you are a caricature of liberalism.

 

[Pens1566]

Reading is fundamental

 

[Patranus]

None. Why are you not posting about how all of these corporations that still are getting funding from Congress?

Come on, speak up and tell us how these defense contractors, with billions of dollars of admitted misconduct of defrauding this country, shouldn't be allowed funding from Congress anymore.

Come on, we are all waiting.

Write your representative. Make it happen.

 

[fskimospy]

Thus we see the liberal agenda - if we don't fund the liberal machine, then we have imposed a penalty on them. ACORN is entitled to tax money, and any failure to fund them is anti-Constitutional. And if some individuals working for ACORN happen to be convicted of crimes (voter fraud and vandalism come to mind) in the course of their duties, why, that's not ACORN, that's just some misguided people who happen to work for them.

Man, you are a caricature of liberalism.

And you are a caricature of proud ignorance.

Did you read this thread? The ruling? Excerpts from the ruling in news articles from reputable sources? Did you learn what a bill of attainder is? If you did any one of those four things you would not be making this post.

As has already been said in this thread, nobody is entitled to tax money, Congress can apportion it however it chooses. If it decides to single out a specific individual entity for negative action (like stripping funding already allocated), then it must have a larger regulatory purpose for doing so. This bill does not. That's what a bill of attainder is, and that's what this legislation was.

If you are at all interested in preventing excessive federal intervention into individual business as a good conservative should be, then you should be cheering this decision even though it helps out an organization that you've been instructed to hate. Why are you arguing for the ability of Congress to explicitly violate an enumerated limit on its powers in the Constitution?

I am finding it funny that when Congress tries to help people afford health care the conservatives on here shriek about how it's unconstitutional, how the federal government is going to control our whole lives, etc... etc. Then when Congress goes and egregiously violates one of the principles the founding fathers went out of their way to prevent Congress from doing to attack a private entity, you shriek for their ability to do so.

Why don't you try respecting the Constitution all of the time as opposed to when it does things you like? I hate guns, I think that they're awful, but I support gun rights because they are in the Constitution. Maybe you don't like ACORN, but when the government unconstitutionally attacks them you should be able to put aside your partisan rage long enough to realize that it's wrong.

 

[Patranus]

If it decides to single out a specific individual entity for negative action (like stripping funding already allocated), then it must have a larger regulatory purpose for doing so. This bill does not. That's what a bill of attainder is, and that's what this legislation was.

The legislation also didn't "single out a specific individual entity for a negative action"
Please point me to the text of the legislation that documents the "negative action" ACORN was singled out for.....

 

[fskimospy]

The legislation also didn't "single out a specific individual entity for a negative action"
Please point me to the text of the legislation that documents the "negative action" ACORN was singled out for.....

Christ dude, the name of the bill was the 'De-fund ACORN Act'. How much longer until you just admit that you had no idea what you were talking about?

EDIT: Also see Section 2(c)(1) of the bill.

 

[Pens1566]

Christ dude, the name of the bill was the 'De-fund ACORN Act'. How much longer until you just admit that you had no idea what you were talking about?

EDIT: Also see Section 2(c)(1) of the bill.

lol

 

[umbrella39]

Not being able to admit you are wrong is the sign of a little man.