Posted on 11/12/2009 6:13:41 PM PST by driftdiver
In an attempt to regain the millions in funding it lost in the wake of a hidden-camera scandal, ACORN is suing the federal government over congressional legislation that cut off funding to the community organizing group.
Representatives for ACORN sued the federal government Thursday morning in an attempt to regain the millions of dollars in funding the community organizing group lost after filmmakers videotaped its workers offering advice on how to commit tax fraud and various other felonies.
The suit charges Congress with violating the Constitution when it passed legislation in September that specifically targeted ACORN to lose federal housing, education and transportation funds.
That qualifies the legislation as bills of attainder, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the suit on behalf of ACORN. A bill of attainder punishes a person or group without the benefit of a trial, and is illegal under Article 1 of the Constitution.
Bills of attainder have traditionally been understood to have more serious legal consequences -- including the seizure of private property and even capital punishment -- than Congress' decision to withhold funds that are at its discretion to disseminate. Though members of Congress have accused ACORN of corruption, it is not clear how the exercise of its own prerogative is outside the bounds of legislative power.
Critics of the group in Congress blasted the lawsuit as a last-ditch effort to save the foundering organization's bottom line.
"ACORN's baseless lawsuit is the first public acknowledgement we've seen from ACORN of just how desperate they are to use any mechanism available to subsidize an organization that is teetering on bankruptcy and financial insolvency," said Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Anyone wanna take bets on how far this goes?”
It goes as far as the nearest judge can throw it. What constitutes bills of attainder is well established by cort precedent, and this ain’t it.
A frivilous and fraudulent lawsuit that is ridiculous in every way, shape & form.
what these ACORN buttwipes do is so hilarious, I would laugh if it wasn’t being taken so serious...by the buttwipes in government........
One more. Same info.
Thats my thought as well, Holder will move this forward.
Suing the federal government? Let me know how that works out for ya!
I want to know how we can sue government for giving our money to ACLOWN in the first place.
Wouldn't that depend on the judge?
Hey, no problem. The Supreme Court would certainly throw it out, just like when they ruled that the government can't confiscate private property for commercial use.
Oh, wait a minute...
“Wouldn’t that depend on the judge?”
You never know, but in this case, not likely. The steps involved in determining what violates the bills of attainder clause are too well known, and too well established.
“just like when they ruled that the government can’t confiscate private property for commercial use.”
There actually is a legal principle behind that one, namely emminent domain. People talk about compensated takings as only justified if the property goes for “public” use. Of course there is no such thing as a public good, strictly speaking. Nothing benefits everyone equally. Not roads; not even national defense. And it’s easier than you think to argue private commercial use is indirectly a public good.
There is no such wiggle room as regards ACORN’s claim.
emminent = eminent
I hasten to add that the broad conception of what defines public use in eminent domain held by SCOTUS is not my own, and was not the one held by those who ratified the 5th amendment to the Constitution. But it is part of judicial precedent.
The point is, SCOTUS has long allowed the states the freedom to come up with their own criteria. So the 2005 decision which sparked so many headlines was not out of line with their tradition. Similarly, there is a tradition of interpreting the bills of attainder clause a certain way, and whatever court gets this case will follow it.
Well, I wasn't being entirely serious. I don't think ACORN has a leg to stand on, either. My comment went more to the stupid decisions we get from liberal judges.
I can't agree with you on the Kelo decision. I'm not a constitutional scholar (there's a lot of that going around these days), but I just don't see how an argument can be made that increasing tax revenue can justify depriving someone of their property.
Yeah, and what would these cretins know about the Constitution?
In a sane world, the courts would rule that any such payments to any NGO is illegal.
“but I just don’t see how an argument can be made that increasing tax revenue can justify depriving someone of their property”
Actually, increasing tax revenue would be a perfect eminent domain argument. The 5th amendment states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” and the aim of raising revenue for the government falls under my definition of “public use”. The problem is that the land wasn’t administered by the city, but was sold to private developers. It wasn’t really being “used,” merely sold, by the government. And I think that’s a violation.
IMHO anyone who voted to give them ANY money should be jailed. Tax money supporting voter fraud and the democratic/marxist party.
Hey congress doesn’t allocate any funds to me...they do the opposite. I’m going to sue.
Well, I guess that's kind of my point.
It's indefensible...
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.