ACORN Appeals Unconstitutional Funding Cutoff in Federal Court This Thursday
If you're in New York this Thursday, here's something useful you can do.
As you probably already know, ACORN is appealing this cutoff as an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder (the kind of thing the constitution-lovin' Republicans would ordinarily protest, except that they demanded this one).
But it's more than the legal issues. Liberals have to stand up for our allies, and few groups have done more to help the party base than ACORN. Show your support, either by attending the hearing, or by making a donation:
Please join the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) June 24, 2010 to take a stand against Congress' unconstitutional defunding of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN, a community organization that serves poor and working class people across the U.S., was the subject of a targeted right-wing attack last year. CCR filed a case challenging Congress’ unconstitutional actions, and in March, a federal judgeordered the United States government and several federal agencies to rescind orders cutting off funding to ACORN and its affiliates and allies. The U.S. government has appealed this order. Join CCR for oral argument in Acorn v. U.S.A. to make the message loud and clear: give ACORN the federal funding it is undeniably due.
What: Oral Argument in ACORN v. U.S.A.
When: Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. (arrive by 9:30 a.m. for security and seating)
Where: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 500 Pearl Street, 9th Floor, Ceremonial Courtroom, New York, NY 10007Learn more about Acorn v. U.S.A.
Since this was posted today (this Thursday)?
be used to pay ACORN "volunteers" to attend the hearing? I will gladly go as M. Mouse if that will keep the unemployment agency from finding out I worked this week.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
so I don't see how they can hire anyone.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
But I do expect a bonus if I bring D. Duck and S.McDuck with me to the hearing. The both live with me at 100 Pizza Hut Dr.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Pizza.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
The majority opinion, penned by Justice Roberts, states that it is constitutional for Congress to make bills of attainder when the target of such legislation is a liberal advocacy group such as ACORN. Republicans and conservative pundits on Fox hail the decision as an "end to special interests in our election process."
Bills of attainder are prohibited as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has held time and again that the Constitution prohibits all legislative acts, “no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial….”
In this case, the offending language states:
"None of the funds made available by this joint resolution or any prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations."
Last time I looked, there was no trial -- I'm not sure how even the Roberts court might rationalize this boondoggle.
Although I would say, if the argument were seriously made by conservatives it would not surprise me. But based on what you're suggesting this shouldn't need to appeal to the S.C. for it to be struck down as unconstitutional.
If you can stomach it, take a look at the Heritage Foundation website and search for Acorn. The argument in favor of stripping ACORN's federal funding is pretty shoddy and ignores the obvious, e.g., fails to address punishment without trial, etc., but the author makes it anyway.
Make sure to wash afterwards. Thoroughly.
There's some goofuses in the DMN blog site citing the 5th amendment due process to protest the fund Obama had bp set up which I think is total nonsense.
If one simply considers it a business deal, would we want ultimately judges and courts inserting themself in every business deal?
However, under Article 1, sec 9, they might have a point, but the article is against legislation from Congress, not an act of the president.
Afterall it's not bp's gulf; depending on the distance it's either the US (not any few states), or it's international subjecting them to their laws.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
There's nothing constitutionally offensive about the BP escrow fund. It's voluntary, not legislative, and it doesn't matter that/whether the administration pressured BP.
Even then, however, Congress could pass a law preventing drilling permits from being issued to any oil company which has failed to comply with its permit obligations, etc., even where it includes a single entity, because such acts are not bills of attainder if "the law under challenge, viewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed, reasonably can be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes." For example, in SeaRiver Maritime Financial Holdings Inc. v. Mineta (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit upheld the legislative exclusion from Prince William Sound of "any vessel that spilled more than one million gallons of oil into the marine environment after March 22, 1989," a class composed solely of the Exxon Valdez, because it has the legitimate nonpunitive purpose of "reduc[ing] the environmental risk to the Sound" by excluding "a vessel with a history of substantial spillage, and encourag[ing] SeaRiver and other tank vessel owners to take greater steps to avoid a similar spill in any marine environment."
I'll tell you how they'll rationalize it: As before when convenient, they will ignore precedent, which indicates that any bill which has a negative impact on any singled-out person or group is invalid.
Instead, the majority (and don't be surprised if it's more like 6-3) will find that cutting off funding is not a "punishment" as envisioned by the Constitution's understanding of what constitutes a bill of attainder and thus singling out ACORN in this way presents no Constitutional difficulties.
Wish there was a mobile version of C&L
Hell this guy could kick that twirp's ass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmavhpOU5-Y
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
problems posting...
[The servers were being fixed. Sorry for the inconvenience. Site Monitor]
but looking at that screen cap ... I'd REALLY love to rearrange his smarmy face :)
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICGrjmJouWA
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
more like a coupla real meat-balls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBjvJpo-EM8
*Warning: F-sharps ahead ...)
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
.
Privatize the Profits - Socialize the Losses
but rather one that belongs to the Conservatives.
Republicans used to be pretty decent folks until the religious whack jobs and Conservatives took over.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
If the Republicans had had balls or spines they would not have let such polarizing hard core riff raff in.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Theodore Roosevelt would be livid at what his party has since done to thwart the original vision of environmental conservatism. Now conservatives are about the moneyed interests; the exploitation of natural resources instead of their protection. Ol' Teddy would be considered a "librul" to mainstream conservatism today.
was a milita kind of guy. And fond of Sarah Palin's meat of choice.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't be welcome in today's grand oil party. I doubt Eisenhower would be either.
alive and kicking. I thought they were defunct.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Same here. Will this punk ever see real hard time?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
If my memory serves me right......didn't he sneak into Landrau's office with a phony bunch of telephone costumes to wire tap her office? Didn't he go to trial and get convicted?
What is with this country and our judicial system? Money talks, right?
Home of the brave, land of the free....bull shit. Home of the criminals, land of the racist morons. YOU tell me which description better fits?
It would have been nice if this were posted a few dayas in advance. i would have gladly taken off of work to go and at least tell the lawyers arguing for ACORN about my personal dealings with O'Keefe in college.
Anything you care to share here?
With this Supreme Court, who knows.
NOBODY 2012
the congress should have investigated first to reach a decision. this was a case of guilty til proven innocent.
In republican world some guys from saudia arabia flew some planes into a the twin towers so bush decides to attack Afghanistan. Not because they had anything to do with it but because it would be easier to get into Iraq after we had troops in Afghanistan.
How was it Jon put it the other night Cirular jerkular logic.
If you have been noticing everything they do follows the same stupid circular jerkular pattern.
Aren't these Fox employees guilty of libel? Juan Carlos, the Acorn employee, was portrayed as a child prostitute smuggler and he lost his Acorn job from this portrayal.
The Disclose Act passed by 15 votes. It will limit contributions that groups like NRA will make to rethugs but progressive donors to the Democrats are not effected.November is looking up for Democrats. I am very proud of what our party has done.
There is nothing crybaby Boehner can do.
“We Have To Pass This Bill To Make Sure Republicans Don’t Get Elected” - Rep. Hank Johnson
Comments are closed on this entry