FReep mail me if you want on/off the list.
Posted on 09/22/2009 1:23:18 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Two top House Democrats requested Tuesday that the Congressional Research Service conduct an analysis into whether recent legislation to strip federal funds from community-organizing group Acorn is unconstitutional.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., ...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Where in the constitution does it say we are required to subsidize ACORN?
Cutting off funds to an organization that is full of crooks is against the Constitution? Amazing!
Now this is almost funny. The only time Dems worry about whether any of their legislation is “unconstitutional” is when it threatens one of their favored crony organizations.
Are those Bills of Attainder, too?
If these Dems want to keep the ACORN scandal front and center then so be it.
If these Dems want to keep the ACORN scandal front and center then so be it.
Not enough bad stuff can happen to these people.
Wait for it...we haven’t heard the end of the ACORN scandal or videos.
Gawd are the Dums Dumb. Congress can give money and congress can take it away.
Who WORTE the bills in place now, who WROTE the ones that were up for passage? Whomever WROTE them should be investigated. As usual, the wrong people will be on the right side of the microphone. Stupid hearings.
The CRS actually does good unbiased work when given a specific assignment. Barney and company may not like the answer CRS ultimately gives them.
*snort* So, Dims, what is this "constitution" of which you speak? (cue crickets chirping)
Reading this, this is how wars start...unfortunately words only go so far. To removed this scum, blood might need to be shed...
Racket..."A scheme for getting money or other benefits by fraud, intimidation or other illegitimate means"...{Websters Dictionary}
In the history of the United States, only six federal legislative enactments have ever been declared unconstitutional as bills of attainder. The last one was in December 2003, when the Elizabeth Morgan Act (which was added as a rider on a major transportation bill by Republican Rep. Thomas M. Davis of Virginia) was invalidated as a bill of attainder by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, costing the federal government about $1 million in attorney’s fees. You want to know what’s funny? Both John Conyers and Barney Frank voted for the bill.
I couldn’t believe Rivera was trumpeting this claim which Ann Coulter dismissed saying where in the constitution does it say we should fund ACORN. I didn’t think he came up with it on his own. Let them keep ACORN front and center.
The states should also investigate, ban and block ACORN from any funding. It will not work in blue states but other states they should hopefully get something passed. It will not stop Fed money.
James and Hannah have more tapes.
Exactly. ACORN has no vested Constitutional or statutory right to continue to receive federal funds from Congress. Congress can decide whether to appropriate or not to appropriate funds to any entity at any time and for any reason (or for no reason).
where does it allow the fedgov to provide health care?
Tar and feathers is too good for them.
It’s not even a close call. In Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1867), the U.S. Supreme Court defined a bill of attainder as follows: “A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.”
Defunding ACORN does not “take away” its life, liberty or property, because ACORN has no vested right to the continuation of Congressional funding.
We have a wise latina to correct that.
To paraphrase Dear Leader, “the fact you had to use a dictionary indicates you’re stretching things now.”
And you know what else is ironic, the 90% tax on the AIG bonuses can be clearly viewed as a Bill of Retainer. Do you want me to tell you how Conyers and Frank voted?
I will take a point here with you and say that Congress only has enumerated powers on its ability to spend money. But I understand the point you are making in regards to the subject of this post and it is a good point.
FReep mail me if you want on/off the list.
You're right, I neglected to mention that Congress is subject to the Constitutional limits on its spending power. Of course, my position is that those limits have nothing whatsoever to do with the ACORN situation.
And don’t forget the Palm Sunday Compromise in the case of Terri Schiavo.
Of course the libs are correct: The Constitution is what we say it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.