Now that we know that Blackwater was bribing Iraqi officials to cover up its illegal activities, will congress also move to cut off all their funding?

Nah.

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.

Its an interesting argument, one that I had considered at the time. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

How much other funding gets cut that could be considered punishment because another party takes over the House/Senate/WH?

I personally welcome any court proceedings which will bring to light the corruption within ACORN.

Maybe Obama could appear as a character witness.

#1 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2009-11-12 07:27 PM | Reply | Flag: Didn't like the post and decided to change the topic.

Can we sue the government because we don't receive tax dollars too?

Sure, Joe can be your "lawyer".

There is nothing unconstitutional about funding for ACORN being cut. Neither ACORN nor anyone else is entitled to taxpayer's money. The congress can decide to give or not give.

Frivolous lawsuit. Make them pay the legal costs of this frivolous lawsuit.

#6 | POSTED BY BUZKILLER

Agreed. I hope it goes to trial and CSPAN carries it live. I'd love to see this blow up in Acorns ugly little face.

Would like to see them pay costs on this one.

As for Blackwater--they should be investigated and justice given as found.

If they are found guilty--they should be dropped from getting taxpayer money as well.

The contract must have some null and void clauses.

Just in time for Christmas!

A buttload of Ho Ho Hos.

The contract must have some null and void clauses.

#12 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-11-13 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag

I believe all contracts with the Federal Gov't have statements to the effect of "...if this is no longer in the best interest of the government, this contract can be terminated x days from..."

On topic, this lawsuit is silly. No private organization is ENTITLED to public funding. It's like a child suing because their parents cut their allowance. Suck it up, ACORN.

ACORN may win in court, but suing the government because Congress cut your funding seems like a devastatingly bad long-term strategy. What Congress member would put forward a bill to fund ACORN projects in the future after this?

SHUT these people down---a step toward balancing the budget.

I think they will ultimately lose the lawsuit. A law is a bill of attainder when it "punishes" a person or group without trial, and I think this case will hinge on whether Congress' deprivation of funds constitutes "punishment." I know that the definition of punishment has been expanded to include things other than criminal sentences, but I have a hard time believing that they can present a convincing argument that they have been punished.

The only folks being punished were the taxpayers.

ACORN may win in court, but suing the government because Congress cut your funding seems like a devastatingly bad long-term strategy. What Congress member would put forward a bill to fund ACORN projects in the future after this?
#15 | Posted by rcade

They're not getting the money now, so they have nothing to lose in defending against this unconstitutional bill of attainder.

#17

That will be the crux of the biscuit right there. I'd be inclined to argue that they are being punished in that the denial of funds was unwarranted in the first place and put them at a competetive disadvantage with respect to other similarly minded org's.

Can we sue the government because we don't receive tax dollars too?

#8 | Posted by KBM

If acorn wins, Katie, bar the door. I'm next in line.

They're not getting the money now, so they have nothing to lose in defending against this unconstitutional bill of attainder.

They do if they want new money in the future.

ACORN should have cut its losses, changed its name, fired all of its management and waited for the public to forget the current scandals.

This might be good. If ACORN wins this, then there is legal precedent for a similar suit by Lockheed Martin / Boeing to rsetore funding of the F-22.

Acorn???
OMFGD!!

Commies!
Moozlims!
Nazis!
Atheists!
Gays!

OH MY!

Translation:

"The Sky is falling! The Sky is falling!
WAAAAAHHHH!"

I think we need the Conservative waaaahhhhmbulance service for the rtards.....

This might be good. If ACORN wins this, then there is legal precedent for a similar suit by Lockheed Martin / Boeing to rsetore funding of the F-22.

#23 | Posted by Redman

No. There isn't. And you are an idiot. Completely different situations.

One was a purchasing program that ceased existing when the F-22 no longer was considered a cost effective option (an inevitable event at some point). It was a requirements contract to begin with.

The other was a bill specifically disqualifying a single organization from obtaining any government funding, no matter the qualifications or type of funding, for political reasons.

Whether or not the complaint actually succeeds on a Bill of Attainder claim is something I'm honestly not sure of without some research. Although I appreciate the incredible legal minds of Drudge weighing in with their extensive legal backgrounds and loads of research with citations.

I guess my sarcasm was beyond you.

"The Sky is falling! The Sky is falling!
WAAAAAHHHH!"

I think we need the Conservative waaaahhhhmbulance service for the rtards.....

#24 | Posted by frankf55 at 2009-11-13 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag

Funny, the only group I see whining is ACORN...oh, and you. Sorry that you're a "rtard".

Although I appreciate the incredible legal minds of Drudge weighing in with their extensive legal backgrounds and loads of research with citations.

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2009-11-13 12:21 PM

How about these two cents... This will never get to trial. Either the WH will do an end around and funnel money back to ACORN, or the WH and JD will arrange for some settlement. There is no way the WH wants anything that ties Obama or his staff to ACORN. They will use the same measures as last spring, when they were somehow able to stop any investigation by Conyers and his Committee into voter fraud.

I for one hope it does make it to trial, it would exploit the entire lot in DC, and make public their ties and influence.

I'd be inclined to argue that they are being punished in that the denial of funds was unwarranted in the first place and put them at a competetive disadvantage with respect to other similarly minded org's.

I'm sure that argument is being made. Again, though, simple deprivation of free government money is no more a "punishment" than any other donor deciding they no longer want to contribute to your cause. I think extending the bill of attainder reasoning to this case would be a significant expansion of the rule. It would essentially open the door to any group who has received funds in the past to claim they are being punished if Congress decides they no longer want to fund the operation.

Maybe Obama could appear as a character witness.

#6 | Posted by buzkiller

NAW

odds are that he will once again be 'out of town'

Again, though, simple deprivation of free government money is no more a "punishment" than any other donor deciding they no longer want to contribute to your cause.
#29 | Posted by JOE

Actually no...Legally its the opposite. It is considered a legal right to apply for government funds and receive them if so qualified and suited.

It would essentially open the door to any group who has received funds in the past to claim they are being punished if Congress decides they no longer want to fund the operation.
#29 | Posted by JOE

And this is also the exact opposite of factually accurate. What they are attacking is the legislation that blocks them from obtaining funds if they are otherwise able to. No other group has experienced such a legislative punishment. Other groups might not get funds, but not because of a Bill of Attainder. Often they don't qualify, are the best suited, don't offer the propere ROI, etc. ACORN isn't sueing to get funding, but sueing so they can compete for funding and be rejected on their merits of their application for funds. Currently, they can't obtain funds regardless of the merits of their application

"Currently, they can't obtain funds regardless of the merits of their application..."

Nor should any be considered after being exposed and complicit to voter fraud, amongst other accusations. That should disqualify ANY entity from applying.

BTW... Has ACORN opened up their books yet?

CLIP YesterDAY OF CALIFORNIA AG talking to ACORN

said on clip for this person not to worry.

when beCK people asked AG for information on that
the AG told them that they couldnt comment on ongoing investigation
even knowing the clip was out there.

Actually no...Legally its the opposite. It is considered a legal right to apply for government funds and receive them if so qualified and suited.

That may be true. But show where a denial of that right has been held to constitute "punishment" in terms of a bill of attainder.

And this is also the exact opposite of factually accurate.

No, it isn't. I never said ACORN was suing to get funding. What I stated was accurate. If the bill blocking ACORN from funding is held to be a bill of attainder by a court with the ability to set precedent, it will indeed open the door to any other group who Congress decides should no longer be allowed to receive government money to claim they have been unconstitutionally "punished."

From Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977):

Every person or group made subject to legislation which he or it finds burdensome may subjectively feel, and can complain, that he or it is being subjected to unwarranted punishment. United States v. Lovett, supra, 328 U.S., at 324, 66 S.Ct., at 1083 (Frankfurther, J., concurring). However expansive the prohibition against bills of attainder, it surely was not intended to serve as a variant of the equal protection doctrine, invalidating every Act of Congress or the States that legislatively burdens some persons or groups but not all other plausible individuals. In short, while the Bill of Attainder Clause serves as an important bulwark against tyranny.' United States v. Brown, 381 U.S., at 443, 85 S.Ct., at 1712, it does not do so by limiting Congress to the choice of legislating for the universe, or legislating only benefits, or not legislating at all.

Now that we know that Blackwater was bribing Iraqi officials to cover up its illegal activities, will congress also move to cut off all their funding?

#1 | Posted by TFDNihilist

Yes! Get rid of Blackwater.

Next!

Promising "transparency like you've never seen before," The White House released its visitor log this evening under a new voluntary disclosure policy.

The log chronicles 481 visits to the White House from individuals ranging from Jay-Z to Bill Gates from January through July.

The list includes William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, Robert Kelly (R. Kelly), Malik Shabazz, and Michael Jordan.

The SEIU-ACORN link is deep and longstanding. At least one SEIU local, Chicago's Local 880, was organized by ACORN and run by it for 20 years. An SEIU official recently testified that the local had severed its ACORN ties, but Chris Berg, a former special assistant at the Office of Labor Management Standards, says, "I'm very skeptical." Keith Kelleher, who spent many years running ACORN in Chicago, is still the local's head organizer. "They've been wed together for so long, I don't think they can divorce," says Berg......

"The most important thing to note about what SEIU is doing is that it's really become a lobbying arm for the president," Berg says. "Much like Organizing for America [the community-organizing group run by the Democratic National Committee], they are trying to drive bodies nationwide to lobby their congressmen and senators to try to implement the president's agenda." Seen in that light, it is entirely unsurprising that Stern's name should be the one that appears most frequently in White House visitor logs. Obama and Stern are working together to make America a more liberal place, and they want you to join them.

EVERYTHING Acorn did Obama knew about. Unless of course, you are of the left, and refuse to see!!!!!

EVERYTHING Acorn did Obama knew about. Unless of course, you are of the left, and refuse to see!!!!!

#40 | Posted by DavetheWave

Dave,

Don't you know that that feeling of hopey/change is hard to avoid?

I can't blame ACORN's management staff for wanting to bring suit to the Government (ie: taxpayer) for loss of income. I suppose they can file for unemployment compensation if the suit fails and get on the public doe until they formulate a new scheme. Personally I would love to see them bring this to court. They will be compelled to open their books for all the world to see. We can then find out how much money Bernie Elders really embezzled and who knows what other skeletons they have in the closet. I can't even imagine how many low income people ACORN steered in to sub-prime loans with predictable results for them, mortgage backed bond holders and the taxpayers while the finances crooks got reimbursed for their greedy deeds.

Follow the money!

They pimping and hoing!
-from the right

Everyone against acorn is RACIST!
-from the left

Just another corrupt ass corporation getting $ from the gov and screwing the American People.
-from everyone with half a fucking brain cell

....if only our government and wall street could be held resposible for their crimes in the same way.

Sorry nut this is ALL about barack homeboys doing their own jesse jackson/al sharpton shakedown.

They ain't going bankrupt they hate opening the books, they are hustling the Gov for more money. One way or the other, I bet they get it!!!!!!!

ACORN brought about its own demise by breaking the law and should no longer be allowed to operate as a non-profit entity in this country.