Conundrum Next Conundrum
ACORN is suing to get Federal funding restored. Is it unconstitutional to cut funding?
Can ACORN demand that American citizens must indefinitely continue using tax money to fund activities including counsel on how to cheat the IRS and hide prostitution of young girls? Does their lawsuit have merit?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13acorn.html
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
Email to a friend |
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13acorn.html
RSS
1 answerers thought this was unfair.
Answers (1)
November 13, 2009 02:06 PM
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/sbcvfcc/Default.htm It was unfair to choose no best answer My answer was correct. It specified why it may not be constitutional, why the lawsuit had merit, and gave sources. The only reason for no best answer was clearly that the asker was only venting about the issue and did not want an actual answer. Mahalo should not be a place for rhetorical questions. Helpful Answer?
(0)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
The lawyers for ACORN have found a reasonable case for claiming that the Congressional bill cutting their funding was unconstitutional, although I do not think the case is strong enough for them to win.
While being technical, what it boils down to is that ACORN can't be found guilty of a crime by Congress, or by the media, or by Utube. It can only be found guilty by a legitimate court. So while you can say in your question that ACORN did such and such, it isn't guilty of it unless a court finds it so.
The constitution specifically prohibits "bills of attainder" which is the legislature, Congress, finding someone guilty by passing a bill.
What is not entirely clear, and this is what the defense will be, is whether cutting the money given to ACORN constitutes something similar enough to finding them guilty and punishing them. If the Congressional bill had fined ACORN that would have created a lot stronger argument; but cutting funding isn't quite the same thing as fining. Still, the argument can be made. Congress had shown no particular interest in cutting funding for ACORN until these private videos came out. Then it suddenly passed a bill cutting its funding. There has been no trial, no legal investigation completed, no substantial hearings. Congress has certainly broken the spirit of the law and the constitution whether or not it has done something actually unconstitutional.
To give an example of a recent ruling that gave broader than literal scope to the notion of "bill of attainder", consider SBC Communications, Inc., et. al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et. al. The basic legal issue was whether it was unconstitutional for Congress in enacting the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to ban Bell Operating Companies from engaging in long distance, and other services. The District Court ruled for the Plaintiffs (BOCs) by holding ยง 271-275 unconstitutional bills of attainder. However, the 5th Circuit reversed the case. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, which indicates that it did not think this was really a bill of attainder but it is not as strong as an actual ruling. At any rate, it shows that an unconstitutional "bill of attainder" doesn't have to be something literally the same as an 18th century Act of Parliament to be taken seriously by the courts.
Source(s):
While being technical, what it boils down to is that ACORN can't be found guilty of a crime by Congress, or by the media, or by Utube. It can only be found guilty by a legitimate court. So while you can say in your question that ACORN did such and such, it isn't guilty of it unless a court finds it so.
The constitution specifically prohibits "bills of attainder" which is the legislature, Congress, finding someone guilty by passing a bill.
What is not entirely clear, and this is what the defense will be, is whether cutting the money given to ACORN constitutes something similar enough to finding them guilty and punishing them. If the Congressional bill had fined ACORN that would have created a lot stronger argument; but cutting funding isn't quite the same thing as fining. Still, the argument can be made. Congress had shown no particular interest in cutting funding for ACORN until these private videos came out. Then it suddenly passed a bill cutting its funding. There has been no trial, no legal investigation completed, no substantial hearings. Congress has certainly broken the spirit of the law and the constitution whether or not it has done something actually unconstitutional.
To give an example of a recent ruling that gave broader than literal scope to the notion of "bill of attainder", consider SBC Communications, Inc., et. al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et. al. The basic legal issue was whether it was unconstitutional for Congress in enacting the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to ban Bell Operating Companies from engaging in long distance, and other services. The District Court ruled for the Plaintiffs (BOCs) by holding ยง 271-275 unconstitutional bills of attainder. However, the 5th Circuit reversed the case. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, which indicates that it did not think this was really a bill of attainder but it is not as strong as an actual ruling. At any rate, it shows that an unconstitutional "bill of attainder" doesn't have to be something literally the same as an 18th century Act of Parliament to be taken seriously by the courts.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/sbcvfcc/Default.htm It was unfair to choose no best answer My answer was correct. It specified why it may not be constitutional, why the lawsuit had merit, and gave sources. The only reason for no best answer was clearly that the asker was only venting about the issue and did not want an actual answer. Mahalo should not be a place for rhetorical questions. Helpful Answer?
(0)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Answer this Question
View All General QuestionsAsk a Conundrum
Please visit these retailers to purchase Conundrum or find the wine at these fine restaurants:
- ST HELENA WINES
- SUNSHINE MARKET
- WINE CENTER
- COST PLUS #240
keepontryi...
albanian
Aside from that, you are certainly not thinking clearly in two ways.
First, it does matter whether a court finds anyone or anything guilty. Just saying so, even with some evidence, is a lynch mob mentality. The government, in particular, should never take action on the basis of emotional response to a media story.
Second, you are talking as if ACORN was a single person, or at least a monolithic corporation. It is actually an alliance of countless community groups with a very large number of employees and volunteers. A couple of examples of wrongdoing by its employees is not in any way sufficient to hold the entire group of organizations guilty of anything.
Should all public funding be withheld from the Republican party because several Senators have recently been implicated in sex scandals with prostitutes? And those are leadership positions, not just local office staffers.
There is a right way and wrong ways to find an entity guilty of anything, and there is a proper way for Congress to determine whether the wrongdoing warrants cutting funding in view of the overall activities of the organizations it supports. In this case Congress took the politically expedient short cut instead.
I have little interest one way or the other in ACORN, but I don't like the way it has been attacked. In my opinion the ongoing campaign, which has been going on for years, by the right wing against ACORN is because they were able to register so many poor blacks to vote, and those new voters voted for politicians supporting liberal social programs.
keepontryi...
Second: I know exactly what ACORN is, no need for your lesson.
Third: Repbulicans, right wing? Getting a lilttle far afield aren't you? Plenty of Democrats voted to cut ACORN funding.
Fourth: Nobody asked you to critique my question or my thought process. The question assumes certain facts in the public arena concerning ACORN to be true. If you disagree with those facts, and cannot offer a helpful answer, the thing to do is NOT answer. I find your personal attacks of my question and you condescending to be rude, baseless and uncalled for. Please refrain from "Helping" in the future.
albanian
Democrats joined in this bill but the ongoing campaign for several years has been by the right wing.
The question does not assume facts to be true, if you want to make an assumption in a question you have to say so. But even if one does assume the facts to be true, the constitutional question that you asked has the same answer. The constitutional question, and the merits of the case, turn on the lack of a court decision and the definition of "Bill of attainder".