| ACORN Sues Over 'Unconstitutional' Funding Cuts By Congress. Do they have a case? |
|
ACORN Sues Over 'Unconstitutional' Funding Cuts By Congress. Do they have a case?
Click to vote
|
|
||||
Ask500
|
Login
United States
"Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against the United States government in an effort to derail a a right wing campaign to target, attack and crush progressive organizations. ACORN v. USA challenges the legality of the actions of Congress in passing a resolution barring government funding of ACORN and all of its affiliated and allied organizations.
Their actions constitute a bill of attainder - effectively permitting Congress to act as judge, jury and executioner without a trial or judicial hearing. Despite existing regulations and mechanisms to address legal concerns involving federal grantees, this resolution was passed solely for the purpose of singling out ACORN and its affiliates for de-funding and punishment."
Definition of bill of attainder: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
Well, I guess that answers that.
Unless, perhaps, a definition of "punishment" is relevant. Was ACORN "punished" for doing something bad, or were the funding cuts made for some reason other than to "punish" ACORN?
When a company "downsizes" people lose jobs. Is this loss of jobs a "punishment"? Likewise, are funding cuts considered a punishment if a logical reason is proffered for the cuts?
If ACORN was singled out solely, than that would constitute punishment.
If all else fails try democracy. Ask tax payers if they want some of their money (it IS their money, not the government's) to go towards funding ACORN.