Acorn CEO: Block on Federal Money ‘Unconstitutional, Wrong’

Wall Street Journal ^

[Sub-Driver]

Acorn CEO: Block on Federal Money ‘Unconstitutional, Wrong’

Nomaan Merchant reports on politics.

Acorn CEO Bertha Lewis made it clear she’s not happy with an amendment to a stop-gap funding bill that blocks any money from going to the community organizing group.

“To include language in legislation that targets a single organization is unconstitutional and wrong,” Lewis said in a statement. But she saw a silver lining of sorts: “One unintended - and positive - consequence of the witch hunt against ACORN is that it could help rein in the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater and even Wall St. If the standard is that organizations that have broken the law shouldn’t get federal money, then let’s set that standard consistently.”

The bill avoids a government shutdown while Congress completes work on fiscal 2010 appropriations. The measure passed the House, and now must clear the Senate before Oct. 1, the start of the new fiscal year.

Democratic lawmakers included the language blocking any money to Acorn – the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – to distance themselves from the community group.

[Sub-Driver]

a witch hunt?

[avacado]

. But she saw a silver lining of sorts: “One unintended - and positive - consequence of the witch hunt against ACORN is that it could help rein in the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater and even Wall St. If the standard is that organizations that have broken the law shouldn’t get federal money, then let’s set that standard consistently.”

Sweetie... they get contracts to work for the government. You get freebies. There is a difference!

[oh8eleven]

“To include language in legislation that targets a single organization is unconstitutional and wrong,” Lewis said in a statement.
Unconstitutional? Please, oh pleeeease, explain that to me.

[boxerblues]

Halliburton and Blackwater are now 501c’s

WOOHOO we can donate to our favorite charities

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Bertha The Hutt opens her cakehole and bellows again? All I heard was:

blah, blah, blah, gimme mai monnie!! blah, blah, blah.

Anyone hear anything differnt?

[P-Marlowe]

“To include language in legislation that targets a single organization is unconstitutional and wrong,” Lewis said in a statement.

Maybe they should have specifically blocked any funds going to ACORN AND the NAZI party.

[marstegreg]

And what they have done with OUR money IS constitutional!? Squirm Acorn, squirm!!!

[SoldierDad]

“To include language in legislation that targets a single organization is unconstitutional and wrong,”

Translation: "ACORN is a protected entity and can break the law with impunity".

[Publius]

It’s called a Bill of Attainder, and it’s unconstitutional.

[Graybeard58]

Unconstitutional? Please, oh pleeeease, explain that to me.

I heard a lib on tv recently spout the same nonsense, said it was ex post facto. Ann Coulter pointed out to him that it was unconstitutional to give them money to begin with.

[Flightdeck]

ACORN claims to be non-partisan?

[marstegreg]

“To include language in legislation that targets a single organization is unconstitutional and wrong,” Lewis said in a statement.

O.K., then let’s include SEIU, Apollo and TIDES too!!!

[theyreallthesame]

“Unconstitutional and wrong”?

SEE: Health Care Reform Bill

[Maverick68]

Actually, it’s unconstitutional for the govt. to give money to a partisan organization that exists for the sole purpose of fraud and election riggings, so it’s a wash...

[isom35]

I am the farthest thing from a law person, but was it constitutional to give them money in the 1st place?

[grey_whiskers]

Only if done as a fine or punishment.

Failing to renew ongoing contracts as a result of untrustworthy performance is not the same thing.

Nice try.

Cheers!

[WOBBLY BOB]

see if she floats. if not, burn her.

[cripplecreek]

Stealing money from taxpayers to support things we oppose seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

[sourcery]

“To include language in legislation that targets a single organization is unconstitutional and wrong,”

She's referring to a Bill of Attainder, which is in fact Unconstitutional.

However, the mere fact that legislation references a particular person or organization by name does not make it a Bill of Attainder. To be such, it must be a law that punishes without trial (e.g., by imposing a fine, confiscating property, imprisonment, or otherwise denying a person his rightful liberty; or it must suspend civil liberties.) Denying some named person or organization a gift from the public purse does not satisfy the definition.

[RSmithOpt]

so ACORN has produce what that I can actually put my hands on that helps ALL Americans???

Guess it's unconstitutional to continue refuse fund rampant widespread corruption??

[Buck W.]

“see if she floats. if not, burn her.”

It’s a fair cop!

[meadsjn]

“To include language in legislation that targets a single organization is unconstitutional and wrong,” Lewis said in a statement.

The woman has a good point. Expand the language of the bill to include the 250, or is it now up to 300 plus, affiliates, subsidiaries, spin-offs, and under-the-table fringe groups assiciated with ACORN and/or its individual crooks.

[Publius]

Congress has been handing out money to groups like this since the Sixties. No one has challenged the constitutionality of that.

Congress can decide to give -- or not to give -- money to any class of groups it wishes. But singling out one particular group, giving it money, and then banning further giving is a Bill of Attainder. That's specifically banned by the Constitution.

A good solution would be to ban giving money to a particular class of groups, of which ACORN would only be one member.

[OCCASparky]

Didn’t seem to bother Congress when they taxed AIG execs. And one can still pull funding and still pass Constitutional muster. Then again, funding ACORN in the first place would likely fail the Constitutional smell test, but whatever.

[mad_as_he$$]

OK Bertha, just where in the Constitution does it say you sohould be getting and funding to start with?

[OCCASparky]

Or does she weigh the same AS A DUCK???

[bigbob]

Anyone who thinks they’ve been wronged or defrauded by ACORN needs to file a lawsuit now. I can see them being bled to death by the (temporary, at least) lack of funding and legal costs to defend against hundreds of lawsuits.

Finish them off or they will rise again.

[allmendream]

No no no. If she drowns she was innocent, if she floats she is guilty and burnt as a witch.

But only if she turned someone into a newt... even if they got better.

[jacquej]

Very interesting!

Does that mean that the so-called health care bill will be unconstitutional?

“However, the mere fact that legislation references a particular person or organization by name does not make it a Bill of Attainder. To be such, it must be a law that punishes without trial (e.g., by imposing a fine, confiscating property, imprisonment, or otherwise denying a person his rightful liberty; or it must suspend civil liberties.)”

[GalaxieFiveHundred]

Or does she weigh the same AS A DUCK???

Substantially more, yet not quite as attractive...

[Old North State]

Individual contractors are disbarred from receiving government contracts all the time. The legal precedent for such action is well established. Contractors have right of appeal,but to claim a disbarment is a bill of attainder is far fetched. The left better wait until Obama gets a couple more affirmative action appointees on the supreme court to try that.

[Marty62]

You mean it WASN’T unconsitutional for one group to be single out to RECEIVE federal funds.
Stupid ignorant boob,

[oh8eleven]

Yes, by legal definition and under normal circumstances.

[Oldpuppymax]

If you’re going to be a thug, liar, thief and criminal you might as well be breathtakingly arrogant as well!

[Hoffer Rand]

"If the standard is that organizations that have broken the law shouldn’t get federal money, then let’s set that standard consistently.”

I think she just admitted they've broken the law.

[Personal Responsibility]

I love it when a liberal says “lets set the standard consistently”.

They are the party of double, triple, quadruple and “rolling” standards!

[PeterPrinciple]

“To include language in legislation that targets a single organization is unconstitutional and wrong,” Lewis said in a statement.
Unconstitutional? Please, oh pleeeease, explain that to me.

---

Unfortunately that may be right. That is why in the tax code when a special law is written, it is so specific that only that one company can meet the qualification but the company is NEVER named.

[Trajan88]

Bertha... where in the U.S. Constitution does it explicitly state ACORN has a RIGHT to anything, especially tax payer's money?

By the way... is it me or does the name "Bertha" connote some one of very large girth?

[Talisker]

It’s called a Bill of Attainder, and it’s unconstitutional.

Bills of Attainder are criminal. Defunding an organization from the public trough doesn't qualify.

[Stand Watch Listen]

[Kowdawg]

ACORN claims to be non-partisan?

They worked with John McCain in the past.

No, for true!

[Lucky9teen]

You Blew It!!

[In Maryland]

WRONG! Who the federal government chooses to fund or not fund is a matter within it’s scope. If Congress passed a law levying a special tax on ACORN (say, like the Maryland legislature tried to put a special tax on Wal-Mart) that WOULD be a bill of attainder - but to choose to exclude funding an organization is not. Contrary to the thought of many liberals, money from the public coffers is NOT a constitutional right!

[leakinInTheBlueSea]

"...the witch hunt against ACORN..."

Finding the big bad witch of the nut should not take very long :)

[sourcery]

Any fine imposed by Federal law could not be imposed without providing due process. That means a trial or other hearing, with the fine actually being imposed by ruling of the court. The law passed by Congress can only enable the court to impose the fine, it cannot levy the fine directly. To do so without a court proceeding violates the due process requirement. To do so against named persons (as opposed to any person who commits a named act) would be a Bill of Attainder.

[In Maryland]

bill of attainder
n. pl. bills of attainder
A legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime, usually treason, without trial and subjecting that person to capital punishment and attainder. Such acts are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[EDINVA]

It might well be argued that funding ACORN at all is unconstitutional.

[Still Thinking]

“To include language in legislation that targets a single organization is unconstitutional and wrong,” Lewis said in a statement.

She's right. To name a specific organization would violate equal protection and is dangerously close to being a bill of attainder. So how about "Any community organizer group assisting pimps and ho's to traffic in underage children for the purpose of prostitution and which also helps them to avoid paying income taxes due, shall get no money from us."? Would that be acceptable?

[kennedy]

"To include language in legislation that targets a single organization is unconstitutional and wrong"

I agree.

Congress should block funding to all left wing criminal enterprises.

[leakinInTheBlueSea]

If the standard is that organizations that have broken the law shouldn’t get federal money...

There is quite a bit of precedent for that ya know, Bertie. The pulled Boeing tanker contract is but one recent example... and that money was pulled for breaking the law in pursuit of federal funds, not in use of federal funds. In fact, doesn't the latter usually involve DOJ investigations?