Following this pinhead’s logic, Congress may not end (or even lower) federal spending for any entity, anywhere, because that constitutes a “bill of attainder.”
Thanks, Bill, for leaving this turd floating in the American judicial system.
I couldn't find that bit about redistributing my tax money to special interest groups to work against me in my copy of the Constitution, anyway.
Even more specifically, under her theory you could not eliminate funding for an earmark if the earmark became controversial. Suppose there was funding for the Lawrence Welk Museum (there once was). Suppose it became a public issue (which it did). Then suppose Congress stripped the funding because it had become controversial to fund the museum. Under her logic, that would be a "bill of attainder" and thus illegal.
The problem here is that Congress passed a law specifically to affect ACORN, and named it as such. That is where the problem is. If they could find a category to defund in general, and ACORN were in that category, they could Constitutionally enact that into law.
Or id ACORN has been found guilty of ANYTHING in a court of law, then they could defund it.
But you cannot cut off an organization from an opportunity that you are giving to anyone else just because you do not like THEM. That is what was judged unconstitutional.