How Dems outmaneuvered GOP on ACORN

[fskimospy]

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

'Constitutionalism' and more exactly 'strict constitutionalism' would have made no sense in the context of your post.

Or if you want to show how it did, by all means attempt to explain Congress' limitations on applying bills of attainder in a 'strict constitutionalist' sense. In other words, explain to us all how the idea that the government gains its power and legitimacy by the consent of the governed relates to your interpretation of Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution and how it relates to ACORN.

Or just admit that you used the wrong word. Either way.

 

[PJABBER]

'Constitutionalism' and more exactly 'strict constitutionalism' would have made no sense in the context of your post.

Or if you want to show how it did, by all means attempt to explain Congress' limitations on applying bills of attainder in a 'strict constitutionalist' sense. In other words, explain to us all how the idea that the government gains its power and legitimacy by the consent of the governed relates to your interpretation of Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution and how it relates to ACORN.

Or just admit that you used the wrong word. Either way.

Back to your freshman political science class you go!

Mwahahahhahahahahaha!

EDIT: I know American liberal education is lacking in so much, particularly in the study of political philosophy that is not strictly based in Marxist/Leninist ideologies. So, rather than keep laughing at you (I do understand that you are only receiving tutelage in the most limited interpretations of most everything) I am going to offer you a clue contained in the following introduction to constitutionalism (a word which you had no idea the meaning of) -

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constitutionalism/

If you can't find the original text I referenced in your school library, you can check out this reading list -

http://www.constitution.org/constitutionalism.htm

 

[fskimospy]

Back to your freshman political science class you go!

Mwahahahhahahahahaha!

EDIT: I know American liberal education is lacking in so much, particularly in the study of political philosophy that is not strictly based in Marxist/Leninist ideologies. So, rather than keep laughing at you (I do understand that you are only receiving tutelage in the most limited interpretations of most everything) I am going to offer you a clue contained in the following introduction to constitutionalism (a word which you had no idea the meaning of) -

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constitutionalism/

If you can't find the original text I referenced in your school library, you can check out this reading list -

http://www.constitution.org/constitutionalism.htm

I was referring to constitutionalism in the sense of our discussion on interpreting the Constitution. It had no bearing to the point we were talking about.

Regardless, how would you know what's in our education system? From every post of yours that I see it seems exceedingly unlikely you've ever attended one. At least not an accredited one. Maybe you got your degree from Hovind's alma mater... hahaha. Anyone that's been through a real political science program has learned Locke, genius.

I'm still waiting for you to apply such a thing to our discussion on ACORN. I view that law as a bill of attainder, others do not. Please apply strict constitutionalism to this discussion and provide a valid insight. Comon PJABBER, I believe in you. This is your chance to show everyone that you aren't as stupid as you appear, and that you're capable of synthesizing two ideas and forming a coherent thought that you didn't copy and paste from somewhere.

I know you're probably desperately searching for an lunatic fringe right wing editorial that's somehow discussed this matter as I type this.

 

[whylaff]

Back to your freshman political science class you go!

Mwahahahhahahahahaha!

EDIT: I know American liberal education is lacking in so much, particularly in the study of political philosophy that is not strictly based in Marxist/Leninist ideologies. So, rather than keep laughing at you (I do understand that you are only receiving tutelage in the most limited interpretations of most everything) I am going to offer you a clue contained in the following introduction to constitutionalism (a word which you had no idea the meaning of) -

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constitutionalism/

If you can't find the original text I referenced in your school library, you can check out this reading list -

http://www.constitution.org/constitutionalism.htm

Constitutionalism is a component of political theory from an institutional design standpoint. It is the broader concept of constitutions as an institution in government —part of the study of constitutionalism includes theories of interpretation, including, but not limited to, textualism, strict constructionism and originalism. Being a ‘strict constitionalist’ would imply a strict dedication to constitutions, not designate a theory of interpretation.

Thank you for sharing, by the way, the 1st, 2nd, and 4th results when searching Google for “Constitutionalism.” The book you referenced earlier is also reference #2 on the Wikipedia page. Just so you know, there are much better sources available for you, if you'd like to learn about the subject.

 

[PJABBER]

Constitutionalism is a component of political theory from an institutional design standpoint. It is the broader concept of constitutions as an institution in government —part of the study of constitutionalism includes theories of interpretation, including, but not limited to, textualism, strict constructionism and originalism. Being a ‘strict constitionalist’ would imply a strict dedication to constitutions, not designate a theory of interpretation.

While eskimopie is oblivious to the relevance, focused as she is on bills of attainder, you are getting closer to the argument and the interpretations of language which might apply, particularly in your reference to both textualism and originalism, grasshopper.

Are you a lawyer by chance, or by choice?

I am not. Alas, I only indulge in political philosophy. So sad.

Are you intent on applying textualism, or strict constructionism, in your own interpretation of my simple statement? There is so little to go on that wouldn't one necessarily have to bow to the interpretation of the author, namely moi?

Yet all I see are cries of denial!

If we apply the considerations of textualism (and the lower court obviously did not) then we might yet find a validity to the termination of Federal government funding of what has become recognizable as an apparent criminal enterprise engaged in tax fraud, voter registration fraud and embezzlement. It goes without mention that RICO has quite a bit of applicability with ACORN.

Eskimopie argues that until a court finds guilty any and all of the hundreds of legal entities which ACORN knowingly structured specifically to avoid the termination of the activities which have now been made manifest, there can be no action taken. RICO, found constitutionally acceptable in example, requires no such finding, and specifically is structured to seize assets in advance of such finding through injunction and/or performance bond.

Referring to H.R.3571 - Defund ACORN Act - we find the following provisions -

Prohibits any federal contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other form of agreement from being awarded to, any federal funds in any other form from being provided to, or any federal employee or contractor from promoting any organization that:
(1) has been indicted for a violation under any federal or state law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of such an election, including a voter registration law;
(2) had its state corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with federal or state lobbying disclosure requirements;
(3) has filed a fraudulent form with any federal or state regulatory agency; or
(4) employs, has under contract, or retains to act on its behalf any individual who has been indicted for a violation under federal or state law relating to an election for federal or state office. Identifies, specifically, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and any affiliate as such an organization. Requires the Federal Acquisition Regulation to be revised to carry out provisions of this Act relating to contracts.

Hmmm. Doesn't require conviction, just indictment. In fact, ACORN most certainly qualifies for defunding under all four primary provisions.

Remove the word "ACORN" and you have what might be considered valid law. Or keep the word "ACORN" in and move to a higher court for opinion. Let's see how that works out as U.S. Reps. Lamar Smith, R-TX, and Darrell Issa, R-CA, have asked the Justice Department to appeal -

The district court's decision is troubling in many respects, but most significantly, if allowed to stand, it would effectively excise from the Constitution Congress' express Spending Clause power to refuse to appropriate federal funds to an organization that has shown itself likely to misuse those funds in the future, ...Such a conclusion is nothing short of preposterous.

So it goes, the separation of powers is again challenged and the outcome remains to be seen.

If I were Bertha Lewis, or eskimopie for that matter, I would not be celebrating just yet.

Thank you for sharing, by the way, the 1st, 2nd, and 4th results when searching Google for “Constitutionalism.” The book you referenced earlier is also reference #2 on the Wikipedia page. Just so you know, there are much better sources available for you, if you'd like to learn about the subject.

There usually are more authoritative sources for most information, but they tend to be more difficult for all grasshoppers to locate in their desperation to be "right" and to "win," much less understand context and reference. I do try to make it convenient for you to find "better" sources, and Google does make it simpler for you to do so, doesn't it? Of course it does!

After all, in a fit of egotism eskimopie did not even know the term "constitutionalism" and had to ass-ume that I was referring to "constructionism." Wait for it! Eskimopie will stamp her feet and cry that I am not playing nice in her little box of sand! How sad she must be! So the education of America goes, one student at a time.

Though he does tend to stray into moralism, I actually tend to like to read Judge Bork on constitutional law and find his thoughts on judicial activism particularly fun. Perhaps you might enjoy his "The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law" yourself-

http://www.amazon.com/TEMPTING-AMERI.../dp/0684843374

 

[Robor]

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?

Seriously? JFC just admit your ACORN troll thread is 100% fail and let it go. The hole is so deep you're just throwing dirt on yourself now.

Edit: Apparently it's PJBLABBER's thread. Sorry, I get you right wing nut job trolls confused.

 

[Robor]

Blah, blah, blah

AnandTech should start charging you by the character.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow PJABBER, a gigantic wall of text where you said absolutely nothing. As you all but admitted through that dance, constitutionalism has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand, which is what I said to begin with. It is no framework for interpreting the constitution that any legal entity uses.

RICO is a judicial sanction you moron, if the courts took action through RICO this thread never would have existed, instead the legislature tried to usurp the power of the courts. As for removing the word "ACORN" yes, you might have a valid law, which was the entire point.

Your posts seem to rely upon people being unwilling to read the massive wall of shit you throw up and just give up. When someone actually reads the stuff you write they realize that you try very, very hard to sound smart, and fail very, very badly.

 

[PJABBER]

Lahdeedah!

Finals must be getting you down in the dumps.

No need to take it out here!

Take a walk, read a novel, have some fun!

Life is waaaay too short to get your panties in a knot like this.

BTW, you can improve your understanding of RICO here -

http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp

 

[fskimospy]

Finals must be getting you down in the dumps.

No need to take it out here!

Take a walk, read a novel, have some fun!

Life is waaaay too short to get your panties in a knot like this.

BTW, you can improve your understanding of RICO here -

http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp

I already know about RICO, you might want to read your own link though, because you seem to have no understanding of why it doesn't apply to this conversation.

Still waiting for you to explain the interpretation of a bill of attainder in the 'strict constitutionalist' sense. What's the holdup? You can write it in Microsoft Word and THEN cut and paste it over to here if you want, that way you don't have to break your cut/paste streak.

 

[PJABBER]

i already know about rico, you might want to read your own link though, because you seem to have no understanding of why it doesn't apply to this conversation.

RICO! RICO! RrrrrrrrrrrIiiiiiiiiiiiCcccccccccccOooooooooo!

;-)

 

[Turin39789]

winner

 

[PJABBER]

Still waiting for you to explain the interpretation of a bill of attainder in the 'strict constitutionalist' sense. What's the holdup? You can write it in Microsoft Word and THEN cut and paste it over to here if you want, that way you don't have to break your cut/paste streak.

Eskimopie's response to the Declaration of Independence:

July 10, 1776

Mr. Thomas Jefferson, Mr. PJABBER, et al.
c/o The Continental Congress Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Dear Mssrs. Jefferson and PJABBER,

I have read your "Declaration of Independence" with great interest. Certainly, it represents a considerable undertaking, and many of your statements do merit serious consideration. Unfortunately, the Declaration as a whole fails to meet recently adopted specifications for proposals to the Crown, so I must return the document to you for further refinement. The questions which follow might assist you in your process of revision:

1. In your opening paragraph you use the phrase the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God." What are these laws? In what way are they the criteria on which you base your central arguments? Please document with citations from the recent literature.

2. In the same paragraph you refer to the "opinions of mankind." Whose polling data are you using? Without specific evidence, it seems to us the "opinions of mankind" are a matter of opinion.

3. You hold truths to be "self-evident" . Could you please elaborate. If they are as evident as you claim then it should not be difficult for you to locate the appropriate supporting statistics.

4. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" seem to be the goals of your proposal. These are not measurable goals. If you were to say that among these is the ability to sustain an average life expectancy in six of the 13 colonies of at least 55 years, and to enable newspapers in the colonies to print news without outside interference, and to raise the average income of the colonists by 10 percent in the next 10 years, these could be measurable goals. Please clarify.

5. You state that "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government...." Have you weighed this assertion against all the alternatives? What are the trade-off considerations?

6. Your description of the existing situation is quite extensive. Such a long list of grievances should precede the statement of goals, not follow it. Your problem statement needs improvement.

7. Your strategy for achieving your goal is not developed at all. You state that the colonies ought to be Free and Independent States, and that they are "Absolved from All Allegiance to the British Crown." Who or what must change to achieve this objective? In what way must they change? What specific steps will you take to overcome the resistance? How long will it take? We have found that a little foresight in these areas helps to prevent careless errors later on. How cost-effective are your strategies?

8. Who among the list of signatories will be responsible for implementing your strategy? Who conceived it? Who provided the theoretical research? Who will constitute the advisory committee? Please submit an organization chart and vitas of the principal investigators.

9. You must include an evaluation design. We have been requiring this since Queen Anne's War.

10. What impact will your problem have? Your failure to include any assessment of this inspires little confidence in the long-range prospects of your undertaking.

11. Please submit a PERT diagram, an activity chart, itemized budget, and manpower utilization matrix.

We hope that these comments prove useful in revising your "Declaration of Independence." We welcome the submission of your revised proposal. Our due date for unsolicited proposals is July 31, 1776. Ten copies with original signatures will be required.

Sincerely,

Eskimopie
Legal Analyst to the British Crown

 

[fskimospy]

You wrote all of that in an effort to avoid admitting you used the wrong word? (Okay, you probably cut and pasted it.) That huge of a waste of time is sort of strange from someone who was saying 'life is too short' a few posts back.

Mind applying the ideas of 'strict constitutionalism' to the discussion of bills of attainder? I'll give you one last try and then I guess I'll assume that you once again stuck your foot in your mouth while trying to sound smart.

 

[PJABBER]

You wrote all of that in an effort to avoid admitting you used the wrong word? (Okay, you probably cut and pasted it.) That huge of a waste of time is sort of strange from someone who was saying 'life is too short' a few posts back.

Mind applying the ideas of 'strict constitutionalism' to the discussion of bills of attainder? I'll give you one last try and then I guess I'll assume that you once again stuck your foot in your mouth while trying to sound smart.

Good advice is seldom taken, but FWIW - get a life!

 

[fskimospy]

Good advice is seldom taken, but FWIW - get a life!

Didn't think you could.

 

[PJABBER]

Didn't think you could.

I sometimes think that the saving grace of America lies in the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are possessed of two great qualities - a sense of humor and a sense of proportion.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945)

As true now as it was then, grasshopper. Remember this when you get out of school and start that government job of yours.

 

[PJABBER]

Back on topic, we now see that the GAO is going to actively investigate ACORN and there is substantial pressure for the FBI to do so as well. The wheels of Democrat government turn ever so slowly when the rock is lifted from their own for all to see.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72791-gao-tells-smith-issa-it-will-probe-acorn

GAO tells Smith, Issa it will probe ACORN
By Susan Crabtree
The Hill
12/17/09 01:44 PM ET

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has informed two House Republicans that it will investigate ACORN’s use of federal funds.

The GAO sent a letter to Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, informing them of its decision. Smith and Issa on Thursday released the letter, dated Dec. 7.

“GAO accepts your request as work that is within the scope of its authority,” wrote Ralph Dawn, managing director of GAO’s government relations department.

Dawn also noted that in September, Issa, Smith and 20 members of the Senate, as well as Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), requested the GAO investigation.

Issa applauded the GAO for looking into the ACORN controversy.

“ACORN’s criminal acts over many years have robbed taxpayers and charitable donors of the honest public services ACORN was paid to provide,” he said. “This GAO study should be another step toward understanding the scope of funds from across the federal government that were sent to ACORN yet cannot be verified that they were used as intended.”

Smith said the GAO probe is a “good start” but called on the FBI to launch its own investigation, considering the large number of criminal allegations related to ACORN that have surfaced in recent months.

“The GAO review is a good start, but given ACORN’s extensive record of criminal conduct, the FBI must also step in,” he said. “Only an independent criminal investigation conducted by the FBI can get to the bottom of the nationwide allegations against ACORN.”

ACORN is under investigation in more than a dozen states. Many members of the organization and its affiliates have been convicted of criminal conduct, including voter registration fraud.

Congress voted to prohibit ACORN from receiving government grant money after the organization came under fire mid-year for a string of embarrassing scandals, including the disclosure by conservative activists of video showing ACORN counselors encouraging criminal conduct by providing mortgage advice to people posing as a pimp and a prostitute interested in setting up a brothel.

Last week, a federal court struck down the congressional ban on ACORN grants, saying the prohibition amounted to an unconstitutional bill of attainder, a legislative determination of guilt without trial because it targeted one group for punishment. Smith and Issa have called on the Justice Department to appeal the decision.

 

[fskimospy]

As true now as it was then, grasshopper. Remember this when you get out of school and start that government job of yours.

I don't think I'll take personal advice from a 50-odd year old man who in half a century hasn't learned how to admit he was wrong. Thanks anyway though, FDR is an excellent source of wisdom!

 

[UberNeuman]

Wow PJABBER, a gigantic wall of text where you said absolutely nothing. As you all but admitted through that dance, constitutionalism has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand, which is what I said to begin with. It is no framework for interpreting the constitution that any legal entity uses.

RICO is a judicial sanction you moron, if the courts took action through RICO this thread never would have existed, instead the legislature tried to usurp the power of the courts. As for removing the word "ACORN" yes, you might have a valid law, which was the entire point.

Your posts seem to rely upon people being unwilling to read the massive wall of shit you throw up and just give up. When someone actually reads the stuff you write they realize that you try very, very hard to sound smart, and fail very, very badly.

Yeah. It's a thing of beauty, isn't it?

 

[feralkid]

He's dependable.

Nothing more...

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

It interesting that the usual trolls on this thread (and for the whole forum acutally) always shut up in the end.

It's like they hear from the Rush/Hannitys that "x is wrong because of a,b, and c". They then copy/paste a post about x, and list reason "a". It gets refuted, so they post "b", which gets shot down, and then fall back on "c". Once it gets discredited, they all shut up, I guess because the Rush/Hannity's don't have anything else for them to cut/paste into these threads. Pretty sad, really.

Just like here, no one can show that a bill of attainder is legal, and no one can show evidence that the judge ruled incorrectly. How about using some of your own grey matter for a change before posting this garbage?

 

[PJABBER]

It interesting that the usual trolls on this thread (and for the whole forum acutally) always shut up in the end.

It's like they hear from the Rush/Hannitys that "x is wrong because of a,b, and c". They then copy/paste a post about x, and list reason "a". It gets refuted, so they post "b", which gets shot down, and then fall back on "c". Once it gets discredited, they all shut up, I guess because the Rush/Hannity's don't have anything else for them to cut/paste into these threads. Pretty sad, really.

Just like here, no one can show that a bill of attainder is legal, and no one can show evidence that the judge ruled incorrectly. How about using some of your own grey matter for a change before posting this garbage?

Ho ho ho, angry Internet cat!

Just because someone keeps repeating the same challenges over and over again doesn't mean they are right. In fact, the judicial decision is under review for appeal by the Attorney General. If it does go to appeal, and that assumes that the current AG who has played way too much politics doesn't in this case, then the outcome is yet to be determined.

While gals like eskimopie are playing patty-cake repeating the judge's claim that this legislation represents a bill of attainder, this is far from a done deal. If you read more you will see there is a significant question dealing with the separation of powers and the right of Congress to fund or not to fund.

I like to have some fun here and I readily admit to being a political philosopher and absolutely not a lawyer, while others like to preach on and on about whatever minutiae they have an opinion on (or someone else's opinion on) but are no more qualified to address. I know there are some attorneys that read and post here and though they may not be specialists in Constitutional law, they may also have another opinion entirely. Let them have at it as well, it might be more interesting altogether.

Keep it fun, cause the case is not closed yet and the ultimate outcome is still in doubt. More posting will come with more news, you betcha!

Oh, and why don't you yourself check out some of the opposition views so that you can have a perspective that isn't so doctrinaire? I never listen to Rush or Hannity, or Obermann or Maddow either for that matter! Makes for a more interesting life!

Play him off, keyboard cat!

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Ho ho ho, angry Internet cat!

Just because someone keeps repeating the same challenges over and over again doesn't mean they are right. In fact, the judicial decision is under review for appeal by the Attorney General. If it does go to appeal, and that assumes that the current AG who has played way too much politics doesn't in this case, then the outcome is yet to be determined.

While gals like eskimopie are playing patty-cake repeating the judge's claim that this legislation represents a bill of attainder, this is far from a done deal. If you read more you will see there is a significant question dealing with the separation of powers and the right of Congress to fund or not to fund.

I like to have some fun here and I readily admit to being a political philosopher and absolutely not a lawyer, while others like to preach on and on about whatever minutiae they have an opinion on (or someone else's opinion on) but are no more qualified to address. I know there are some attorneys that read and post here and though they may not be specialists in Constitutional law, they may also have another opinion entirely. Let them have at it as well, it might be more interesting altogether.

Keep it fun, cause the case is not closed yet and the ultimate outcome is still in doubt. More posting will come with more news, you betcha!

Oh, and why don't you yourself check out some of the opposition views so that you can have a perspective that isn't so doctrinaire? I never listen to Rush or Hannity, or Obermann or Maddow either for that matter! Makes for a more interesting life!

Play him off, keyboard cat!

Well, given that you cup and paste other people's articles all the time to start all of your trolls, I'll hold off on believing you put any thought process into your usual troll posts. Especially since you then defend those same posts with the "reason of the day" from the right-wing troll-site's like Rush and others.

 

[fskimospy]

Update: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30919.html

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has found that ACORN did not violate any laws.

Judge denies request to reconsider that the Defund ACORN Act is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

Shocking.