Posted on 12/11/2009 11:18:59 PM PST by Steelfish
December 11, 2009 Judge Rules Effort to Strip ACORN of Federal Funds Unconstitutional
ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress' decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an organization
NEW YORK -- The U.S. government's move this fall to cut off funding to ACORN was unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Friday, handing the embattled group a legal victory.
U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued the preliminary injunction against the government, saying it's in the public's interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.
ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress' decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an individual organization.
Gershon said in her ruling that ACORN had raised a "fundamental issue of separation of powers. They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt."
Bill Quigley, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of ACORN and two affiliates, said the decision sends a sharp message to Congress that it can't single out an individual or organization without due process.
"It's a resounding victory for ACORN," he said. "I'd be surprised if the government decides to appeal."
ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as an advocate for low-income and minority homebuyers and residents in communities served by its offices around the country. Critics say it has violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.
The law that halted ACORN's federal funding took effect Oct. 1 and was extended Oct. 31. It was set to either expire or be extended again on Dec. 18.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Let’s see now: The Congress is allowed to “target” an organization by showering it with funds, but it is not allowed to “target” an organization in order to turn off the spigot. Makes perfect sense to me.
Something is wrong with this thought process. The government doesn't need a judicial decision to defund any program they see fit whether they are for the right or wrong reasons.
Liberal Judges- the curse of our nation!
Wonder how much the Judge is getting from this slush fund called Acorn?
What "separation of powers"? Where is she getting that nonsense? The House has the Constitutional authority to fund programs within the enumerated powers, which they have abused for decades. Still, it is within the House powers to fund. WTF? Where do these judges get their law degrees?
U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon, a Clinton appointment.
I believe she is referring to “procedural due process.” When an entitlement is created it is in the nature of a “property interest” and may not be taken away without a right to a fair hearing. However, this doesn’t apply to the budgetary process otherwise Congress would forever be handcuffed by the expenditures it makes to private groups.
It looks like the judge has taken the position that Congress' action was effectively a Bill of Attainder.
Whether that is the correct interpretation of the clause, I couldn't say (not a lawyer, much less a constitutional scholar).
bookmark
Yes, it doesn't matter whether its administrative due process decision or some other appeal deciding body as they have no sway on the general fund which is not "property interest" of ACORN. The government has the Constitutional right to tax and spend it as they see fit.
No- Bills of Attainder are to single out individuals for punishment as guilt of crime. Congress was not adjudging guilt. Funds were stripped because ACORN is not a worthy trustee of taxpayer funds. Congress is fully within its power to disburse taxpayer funds to any group as it sees fit so long as it does not violate the Establishment Clause.
You’re probably right - like I said, I’m no legal expert.
Either way, the decision sucks rocks.
It would certainly be in the public interest to comb the chewing nits out of this judge’s head.
“Judge Rules Effort to Strip ACORN of Federal Funds Unconstitutional “
The Constitution is only useful to justify Socialist takeover and destruction of Constitutional guarantees of freedom.
It may not be used to defend the freedom intended by the founders of the United States.
signed: Obama, Pelosi & Reid
or
IMPolite, IMPertinent and IMPudent.
So she is effectively saying that “no matter what ACORN does, it will be ‘unconstitutional’ to single them out and cut them off?”
Un-freaking-believable.
What about the Boy Scouts?
What about AIG?
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.