How Dems outmaneuvered GOP on ACORN

[whylaff]

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.....

The text of the bill was specifically written for ACORN and ACORN was the only organization impacted by it. The action outlined in the bill was to remove funding that they use to operate, thereby constituting a negative action. Congress was taking away what they had. This terminology is not "negative" in the judgmental or subjective sense, it is mechanical. It could very well be warranted action—but it does not matter if they specifically name a group or individual. Congressional legislation has to be broad--this is a basic element of Constitutional interpretation.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Canceling existing contracts is practically de rigueur for the defense industry, yet somehow ACORN should be different? Defunding a private agency or project has never been considered a bill of attainder in any higher court, else this practice could not stand when in fact it is common. This judge is quoting only a district court opinion, and in my opinion a foolish opinion, that implies a Constitutional right to apply for and receive government largess. Thus defunding a private agency now equates an attack. Should this opinion stand, the Congress literally must fund ACORN in perpetuity and we are all screwed.

 

[fskimospy]

Canceling existing contracts is practically de rigueur for the defense industry, yet somehow ACORN should be different? Defunding a private agency or project has never been considered a bill of attainder in any higher court, else this practice could not stand when in fact it is common. This judge is quoting only a district court opinion, and in my opinion a foolish opinion, that implies a Constitutional right to apply for and receive government largess. Thus defunding a private agency now equates an attack. Should this opinion stand, the Congress literally must fund ACORN in perpetuity and we are all screwed.

You still have not either read my previous posts or the ruling, or if you have you have not understood them. Congress can fund or defund whatever it wants, but it must have a regulatory or national purpose for doing so. Canceling a fighter jet program is nowhere close to the same thing as canceling existing contracts with an entity over unadjudicated accusations. The judge specifically said this in his ruling, in fact that's the entire reason it's a bill of attainder. I have to ask again, are you aware of what one is? Did you do any of the four things I asked you to do before?

Congress cannot enact vendettas against organizations it does not like without a larger legislative purpose. Period. This bill is obviously that. It has nothing to do with your invented argument of forcing the country to fund people forever.

Maybe you can explain what you're not understanding about this? (I would once again recommend reading the injunction, most of what you're complaining about is dispensed with in that)

 

[Pens1566]

I think we'll just get another apples to cell phones example of govt. cancelling contracts.

 

[Patranus]

Canceling a fighter jet program is nowhere close to the same thing as canceling existing contracts with an entity over unadjudicated accusations.

And what justification are you using to say that the reason for canceling the existing contracts was anything other than cutting "pork" or an attempt to reduce the deficit?

 

[EagleKeeper]

You still have not either read my previous posts or the ruling, or if you have you have not understood them. Congress can fund or defund whatever it wants, but it must have a regulatory or national purpose for doing so. Canceling a fighter jet program is nowhere close to the same thing as canceling existing contracts with an entity over unadjudicated accusations. The judge specifically said this in his ruling, in fact that's the entire reason it's a bill of attainder. I have to ask again, are you aware of what one is? Did you do any of the four things I asked you to do before?

Congress cannot enact vendettas against organizations it does not like without a larger legislative purpose. Period. This bill is obviously that. It has nothing to do with your invented argument of forcing the country to fund people forever.

Maybe you can explain what you're not understanding about this? (I would once again recommend reading the injunction, most of what you're complaining about is dispensed with in that)

And what justification are you using to say that the reason for canceling the existing contracts was anything other than cutting "pork" or an attempt to reduce the deficit?

Much is just in the wording.

Look at what Congress did in response to KBR and the sexual harassment issue.

Everyone knew that it was targeted at one person but written so as to apply to anything down the road.

Congress could have done the same for ACORN but chose not to. Why - to allow a loophole. I would suspect that someone from Congress (rep or aide) whispered into an ACORN ear and also sent a message to the sympathetic judge (ACORN had to have done some judicial shopping).

 

[fskimospy]

And what justification are you using to say that the reason for canceling the existing contracts was anything other than cutting "pork" or an attempt to reduce the deficit?

Because of the text of the bill, genius. I like how each time you say something dumb on this topic and are smacked down, you come back with a slightly different tack as if it's going to change things. (I loved how you were asking where in the 'Defund ACORN Act' was ACORN specifically targeted)

I'll use the same justification that the judge used, mainly that many of the legislators responsible for drawing up and voting for the bill spoke about the need to punish ACORN. Legislative history is frequently used to determine legislative intent.

Is this really that hard to understand?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

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.

Truth hurts, I guess?

Simple language for you, to make it clear: Congress may not pass a bill of attainder, which is what the judge ruled that they did. Is that so hard to understand?

From wiki:

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.

Based on evidence (you know that thing most people ignore, because it doesn't fit their own ideas), the judge found the Congress was doing exactly that. Open and shut case, II guess to everyone but you and the other 30%. Do you also believe Obama is a secret mulsim who was born in Kenya?

Son Congress cannot pass a law that says "no funding ever to ACORN". That is totally not "since Congress cannot punish ACORN, they must instead for no reason pour money into their bank account". Is that really so hard to understand?

As a simple example that hopefully you can understand, if you apply for a job, you cannot be denied that job based on race. That doesn't mean they have to hire you, which is what you and the other trolls are claiming.

Oh, and I guess you shot yourself, since I never mentioned Bush, nor do I care what you think about him. And for that matter, BUsh has nothing to do with this thread, unless you are trolling again, or trying to deflect the thread. But I guess since you ignore the evidence, you will continue to believe what you want, regardless of facts.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Write your representative. Make it happen.

So you admit it, you don't care about them, only ACORN. Got it. Glad to see you can admit your trolling. Acceptance is the first step to treatment.

Mr" fiscal conservative Patranus-troll" doesn't mind the MIC ripping the gov off for billions, he just doesn't want ACORN to get a few million. Brilliant.

 

[werepossum]

Because of the text of the bill, genius. I like how each time you say something dumb on this topic and are smacked down, you come back with a slightly different tack as if it's going to change things. (I loved how you were asking where in the 'Defund ACORN Act' was ACORN specifically targeted)

I'll use the same justification that the judge used, mainly that many of the legislators responsible for drawing up and voting for the bill spoke about the need to punish ACORN. Legislative history is frequently used to determine legislative intent.

Is this really that hard to understand?

So the Democrats wrote a bad bill. Big surprise. So now we the taxpayers get to continue funding this corrupt, criminal enterprise. I'll say it's because ACORN does the illegal things the Democrats want done, and you'll say it's because Constitutionally we have no choice but to continue funding ACORN. Funny how that works out with liberal desires; whether it's funding ACORN or "artists" placing crucifixes in jars of urine we always have to fund it with taxpayers' money. Amazing that the Democrat Congress is bankrupting our country - oh wait, it's not.

 

[Pens1566]

And now comes the turn/backpedal ...

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So the Democrats wrote a bad bill. Big surprise. So now we the taxpayers get to continue funding this corrupt, criminal enterprise. I'll say it's because ACORN does the illegal things the Democrats want done, and you'll say it's because Constitutionally we have no choice but to continue funding ACORN. Funny how that works out with liberal desires; whether it's funding ACORN or "artists" placing crucifixes in jars of urine we always have to fund it with taxpayers' money. Amazing that the Democrat Congress is bankrupting our country - oh wait, it's not.

Again, it's OK for billions to go to the big corps convicted of fraud, even after they admit guilt in multiple cases, but it is still OK to punish a corp *before* a trial, let alone any proof of wrong-doing.

So the right-wing trolls still can't read English and understand the law. Read my post above to learn. Discrimination is illegal. Companies can't not hire you based on race. That doesn't mean they *have* to hire you. Which part don't you understand?

It's really pretty easy to understand. What is the problem with lack of reading comprehension.

 

[werepossum]

Again, it's OK for billions to go to the big corps convicted of fraud, even after they admit guilt in multiple cases, but it is still OK to punish a corp *before* a trial, let alone any proof of wrong-doing.

So the right-wing trolls still can't read English and understand the law. Read my post above to learn. Discrimination is illegal. Companies can't not hire you based on race. That doesn't mean they *have* to hire you. Which part don't you understand?

It's really pretty easy to understand. What is the problem with lack of reading comprehension.

No, it is not okay for billions to go to big corps convicted of fraud, but at least those corporations are providing something of value to society. Neither is it okay to provide millions to a corporation that has been caught on tape many times attempting to support such things as prostitution and child sexual slavery on the grounds that they might get off on trial. In this case, though, liberals are in effect arguing that the taxpayers "have" to hire ACORN even though we've seen what they do in action.

 

[Pens1566]

Someone still doesn't grasp the concept.

 

[Patranus]

Someone still doesn't grasp the concept.

There have been numerous convictions and guilty pleas of workers at ACORN of such offenses as voter fraud.

 

[PJABBER]

Wow! Look at all of the strict Constitutionalists coming out from the woodwork to support ACORN! Wonder why they only like this type of interpretation when it benefits a corrupt organization like ACORN that just incidentally is a key organizer in support of the Democrats and only the Democrats?

ACORN, SEIU and the Working Families Party, all blood brothers, all family, all marching arm in arm in support of the "progressive" Democratic Party. Hmmm. Hmmm. Hmmm.

Today I am tipping my hat to City Hall News. A New York City focused news organization, they have dug deep, very deep, in putting together a massive five part Special Investigative Report on ACORN and the WFP.

The links, the agenda, the methods, the players are all laid bare.

Prominent in the expose are now-White House political director Patrick Gaspard, who was a board member of the Working Families Party, ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis, Robert Master of the Communications Workers of America and Sam Williams of the United Auto Workers. The last three remain the three co-chairs of the Working Families Party.

Here is a link to the first part of the Special Investigative Report. There are four other parts. They all speak to the corruption of ACORN, the WFP and SEIU.

http://www.cityhallnews.com/newyork/article-1043-all-in-the-family-part-1.html

 

[Pens1566]

There have been numerous convictions and guilty pleas of workers at ACORN of such offenses as voter fraud.

Different subject, and still not the point.

 

[fskimospy]

So the Democrats wrote a bad bill. Big surprise. So now we the taxpayers get to continue funding this corrupt, criminal enterprise. I'll say it's because ACORN does the illegal things the Democrats want done, and you'll say it's because Constitutionally we have no choice but to continue funding ACORN. Funny how that works out with liberal desires; whether it's funding ACORN or "artists" placing crucifixes in jars of urine we always have to fund it with taxpayers' money. Amazing that the Democrat Congress is bankrupting our country - oh wait, it's not.

Yeap, now comes the backpedaling and the attempt at false equivalence. Oh, and the bill was written by the Republican minority leader John Boehner.

There is no equivalence here, one of us was right, and one of us was wrong. I could give a shit about ACORN. My opinion is that we should always uphold the Constitution no matter what is going on. When Bush shits on the 4th amendment to create warrantless wiretapping, when Obama shits on due process with his kangaroo courts, when people try to subvert the 2nd amendment, and now when Congress tries to create a bill of attainder. We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.

PJABBER is as usual, ridiculously wrong in a right wing self serving manner. I imagine that 'ol PJ meant 'strict constructionalist' instead of 'strict constitutionalist' (whatever that would be), but he doesn't appear to understand the definition of the term. Strict constructionalism is a philosophy that doesn't allow for inferences to be drawn from the Constitution, thus granting rights not explicitly stated. This case is all about enforcing a prohibition that is explicitly stated. This would not fall under those different ways of interpreting the Constitution, particularly as I am unaware of any mainstream legal thought that recommends ignoring explicit instructions on powers and limitations. It's PJABBER though, he's not exactly the brightest bulb.

 

[fskimospy]

There have been numerous convictions and guilty pleas of workers at ACORN of such offenses as voter fraud.

Still not getting it.

 

[PJABBER]

PJABBER is as usual, ridiculously wrong in a right wing self serving manner. I imagine that 'ol PJ meant 'strict constructionalist' instead of 'strict constitutionalist' (whatever that would be), but he doesn't appear to understand the definition of the term. Strict constructionalism is a philosophy that doesn't allow for inferences to be drawn from the Constitution, thus granting rights not explicitly stated. This case is all about enforcing a prohibition that is explicitly stated. This would not fall under those different ways of interpreting the Constitution, particularly as I am unaware of any mainstream legal thought that recommends ignoring explicit instructions on powers and limitations. It's PJABBER though, he's not exactly the brightest bulb.

Your imagination is as lacking as your arguments. Keep trying to explain yourself away and don't venture to hazard what others much more learned and perspicacious than you understand -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalism

American Constitutionalism: From Theory to Politics
Stephen M. Griffin

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5919.html

 

[Red Dawn]

=PJABBER;29069325 Keep trying to explain yourself away and don't venture to hazard what others much more learned and perspicacious than you understand

Translation: Others more full of crap.

 

[PJABBER]

Translation: Others more full of crap.

Exactly.

 

[werepossum]

Yeap, now comes the backpedaling and the attempt at false equivalence. Oh, and the bill was written by the Republican minority leader John Boehner.

There is no equivalence here, one of us was right, and one of us was wrong. I could give a shit about ACORN. My opinion is that we should always uphold the Constitution no matter what is going on. When Bush shits on the 4th amendment to create warrantless wiretapping, when Obama shits on due process with his kangaroo courts, when people try to subvert the 2nd amendment, and now when Congress tries to create a bill of attainder. We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.

PJABBER is as usual, ridiculously wrong in a right wing self serving manner. I imagine that 'ol PJ meant 'strict constructionalist' instead of 'strict constitutionalist' (whatever that would be), but he doesn't appear to understand the definition of the term. Strict constructionalism is a philosophy that doesn't allow for inferences to be drawn from the Constitution, thus granting rights not explicitly stated. This case is all about enforcing a prohibition that is explicitly stated. This would not fall under those different ways of interpreting the Constitution, particularly as I am unaware of any mainstream legal thought that recommends ignoring explicit instructions on powers and limitations. It's PJABBER though, he's not exactly the brightest bulb.

Again, your interpretation requires that ACORN has an ingrained right to taxpayer money. If ACORN has no ingrained right to federal money, then Congress took nothing from it that could possibly be qualified as a Bill of Attainder. As far as qualifying for strict constructionist thought, are you seriously proposing that one can find in the Constitution a right to federal largess? For if there is no inherent right to federal tax dollars, then ACORN cannot be punished by withholding those dollars any more than am I.

And for someone who purports to care nothing for ACORN you certainly strenuously defend them in every applicable thread.

Something else comes to mind: under this interpretation, every meaningless Congressional resolution condemning someone or some action has become a Bill of Attainder, for Congress is punishing that person or group by diminishing their reputation at the least. For example, Osama bin Ladin has been convicted in no US court, yet Congress condemned him. Obviously this is a Bill of Attainder as his reputation is damaged, ergo he has been punished. Similarly, any group declared to be a terrorist group has suffered a Bill of Attainder. Hell, declaring war on Germany and Japan was a huge Bill of Attainder as neither country had the benefit of a trial and both were called out by name and certainly punished.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

There have been numerous convictions and guilty pleas of workers at ACORN of such offenses as voter fraud.

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.

Please post the court record where ACORN (the corporation) was found guilty by a state or federal judge.

If you can't do that, read my quote above and realize the law says what Congress did was illegal. Clear cut, black and white, 100% illegal. The judge ruled on the law and ruled correctly. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean jack.

So you going to put up or shut up?

edit: Oh, and as to this post from eskimospy:

There is no equivalence here, one of us was right, and one of us was wrong. I could give a shit about ACORN. My opinion is that we should always uphold the Constitution no matter what is going on. When Bush shits on the 4th amendment to create warrantless wiretapping, when Obama shits on due process with his kangaroo courts, when people try to subvert the 2nd amendment, and now when Congress tries to create a bill of attainder. We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.

There are not enough +'s in the world for me to put in this post to agree with this. All of us should always condemn illegal activity, regardless or the R or D after their name. That is what America is, not some bullshit where we only follow the laws when we want, or only follow some of the laws.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, your interpretation requires that ACORN has an ingrained right to taxpayer money. If ACORN has no ingrained right to federal money, then Congress took nothing from it that could possibly be qualified as a Bill of Attainder. As far as qualifying for strict constructionist thought, are you seriously proposing that one can find in the Constitution a right to federal largess? For if there is no inherent right to federal tax dollars, then ACORN cannot be punished by withholding those dollars any more than am I.

No. It. Does. Not. You have tried this line of reasoning several times now, and each time it has been shot down. Please stop trying to use failed arguments. As the example that has been used earlier. Congress has every right to tax you, but if they were to pass the 'tax werepossum only act of 2009', that would be a bill of attainder, and thus be unconstitutional. For the last time, if they are singling someone out for a negative action (and the removal of government contracts already enacted is absolutely negative action) without broader legislative purpose, that is illegal. It has literally zero to do with a 'right to federal largess'.

I do not understand what you are finding so difficult about this.

And for someone who purports to care nothing for ACORN you certainly strenuously defend them in every applicable thread.

Something else comes to mind: under this interpretation, every meaningless Congressional resolution condemning someone or some action has become a Bill of Attainder, for Congress is punishing that person or group by diminishing their reputation at the least. For example, Osama bin Ladin has been convicted in no US court, yet Congress condemned him. Obviously this is a Bill of Attainder as his reputation is damaged, ergo he has been punished. Similarly, any group declared to be a terrorist group has suffered a Bill of Attainder. Hell, declaring war on Germany and Japan was a huge Bill of Attainder as neither country had the benefit of a trial and both were called out by name and certainly punished.

This argument is almost too dumb to qualify for an answer. Once again, do you even know what a bill of attainder is? It is the legislatures attempt to apply what is in effect a judicial sanction upon an individual, thus violating the separation of powers and due process. A declaration of war on another country is not a judicial sanction. A declaration of the government's displeasure with someone is not a judicial sanction, and on no planet that I am aware of is someone saying something mean about you a judicial sanction.

You seriously need to go do some reading, because this is embarrassing.