It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defunding ACORN is Unconstitutional!

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Did we all forget about the U.S. Constitution? Just another example of ignoring the constitution by our legislators! I dislike ACORN as much as the next guy, but that is not grounds for burning the U.S. Constitution.

I hope this leads to exactly what Maddow is saying in this video, many of these organizations should be defunded anyway so I hope this legislation, the "Defund ACORN Act" that passed the House with only 73 votes opposed and the Senate with only 7 opposed, has secondary effects that destroy some of these things like "Black Water", on that I think we can all agree.

Anyway, watch and see what you think:



[edit on 29-9-2009 by memarf1]




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 


If ACORN is not a governmental institution, then the government can decide to stop funding it for whatever reason it so chooses. I see no problem with the government exercising this right.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Right, but by Article 1 they cannot pass legislation to single them out specifically for a removal of funding. The bill is stupid, they just need to deny them funding through the normal channels.

Edit: 1st Amendment to Article 1.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by memarf1]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 


First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


As you can see, this Amendment does not guarantee the rights of any person, corporation, nation or otherwise to receive taxpayer or federal monetary support. Refusing them access to these veins of income does not infringe on their rights to have freedom of speech, assembly, or redress of issues with the government. They are able to carry out their same operations, but with alternative source(s) of funding.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Getting down to brass tacks, they should never have been government funded because they did not represent the tax payers and citizens. They represented a partisan political agenda.

Quite frankly there are way too many special agendas that are paid for by the taxpayers.




Freedom of speech may be misleading for some people.

The term 'free' seems to mean 'funded by taxpayers.'



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
If Acorn were receiving money via a bill passed , they have to pass another bill to offset the Bill that aloud them to get money! Its not singling them out.

It apears that way but its not.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by quetzelcoatl
 


There you have it folks.

NOT unconstitutional.

Besides, would you want ACORN getting your hard earned tax dollars?

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Please post and highlight the part of the constitution that guarantees corrupt left leaning entities a paycheck. Oh thats right, there is nothing in the constitution that has one single iota to do with government funding of anything for any reason! If they are such a nicey nice organization I am sure they will fare just fine with the massive donations that they already receive.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial is called a "bill of attainder", which is unConstitutional. Congress is taking it upon itself to pronounce a guilty verdict, which is not their duty.

Article I Section 9 (and 10 for states) No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 


I wouldnt believe anything I heard on MSNBC, they are just a bunch of Obmama worshippers who will defend any liberal cause, no matter how heinous.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
My god, why in the hell would this government be so stupid as to defund ACORN?

Without ACORN most of them would have never been elected.


They are cutting their own throats.

Defunding corruption, sweeping it all under a rug, are politically wise moves, now they need to find a way to muzzle the president and perhaps a few can survive politically.

Idiots!



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I fail to see how this is a first amendment issue. ACORN's 1st amendment rights as a corporation are NOT being infringed upon. No, there's nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees anyone funding from the federal treasury and, in fact, given their partisan ties, a strong argument could be made that their non-profit status should be revoked entirely and that they shouldn't have been eligible to receive public funding to begin with.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by memarf1
 


Acorn members need to go to prison.
Corrupt. Tax evading libs.
Watch the tapes yourself.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Rachel MadCow needs to take a class on constitutional law. As I have while I was in law school in the course of attaining my Juris Doctor degree, let me explain the concept of a bill of attainder.

Here is a brief explanation of what a bill of attainder is as defined by the United States Supreme Court:


A “bill of attainder” is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment. Cummings v. Missouri, U.S.Mo.1866, 71 U.S. 277, 18 L.Ed. 356, 4 Wall. 277. See, also, Bauer v. Acheson, D.C.D.C.1952, 106 F.Supp. 445.


The Source is West Law that you cannot access without a subscription.

In plain language, a bill of attainder is a legislative action which seeks to affirmatively punish a particular individual or group in a way that deprives that individual or group of a trial.

As stated by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 85 S.Ct. 1707 (1965)


the Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply-trial by legislature.



If the bill made it a crime to do business with ACORN, or if it required ACORN to surrender its offices to the federal government, or if it sought to make membership in ACORN illegal, then it would be unconstitutional. However, by merely making this organization ineligible for federal grant money, congress isn’t punishing ACORN because ACORN can keep doing what it does, it will just need to get private donations instead of our tax dollars.

Here, ACORN is not being punished, nor is anything that BELONGS to them being taken away. The Federal government has in essence decided to fire them. There is no constitutional guarantee to employment by the federal government. By MadCow's reasoning, anytime the Congress decided to stop funding a grant or an organization, it would be unconstitutional.

Another problem with MadCow's reasoning is that ACORN is not a government contractor. As they say on their own website, they are:


ACORN is a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization with national headquarters in New York, New Orleans and Washington, D.C.
www.acorn.org...

They either apply for grants directly, or work with other entities that have gotten grant money to do a particular task in the furtherance of their stated goal. Its like applying for a grant to start a non-for-profit to teach inner-city kids better math skills.

KBR, Blackwater, Northrop, etc... are for profit corporations that the government hires to do a job to assist a branch of the government do its actual work. For example, there are companies that clean the port-o-potties at a temporary military facility, companies that provide food services at federal court houses, etc... Congress has no say in the contracting of these companies. Congress passes a budget for the president to spend on a particular task, and the executive branch uses the money in the budget to pay sub-contractors.

Grant recipients on the other hand are getting money directly from congressional grants, thus, congress has a say in who can get a grant.

I wish Rachel MadCow would just stay on Air America where no one listens to her in stead of MSNBC were no one watches her.


[edit on 29-9-2009 by finemanm]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Seems to me that since ACORN is not a branch/office of the government, but is, in fact, a special interest group, it would have been unconstitutional to fund it in the first place.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Additionally, Northrop and Boeing and McDonald Douglas, etc... are not FUNDED by the federal goverment. They sell products to the federal government just like staples sells them paper and Dell sells them computers.

If the Feds wanted to, they could buy paper from WB Mason and computers from Gateway and it wouldn't be unconstitutional.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by desert
 



I think they'd have a tough time making the 'bill of attainder' argument in court. ACORN has no guarantees of public funding and in this case, the government is not taking away something that ACORN had acquired independently of the government itself. Its not a tax, fee, incarceration of organization officials, etc. In that sense, a government lawyer could easily make the argument that its not a punishment, but merely that the government was leaving them to fend for themselves, without extra help from the public treasury.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Seriously, you think it's unconstitutional? Sigh, I think we're doomed.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Just to further demonstrate my point that Rachel MadCow is completely wrong in her constitutional interpretation:



The measure, added to a larger bill on reforming student loans that won House approval, follows a provision passed earlier in the week by the Senate that would halt Housing and Urban Development grants to ACORN.

Both measures would have to have their differences reconciled in Congress to take effect.

ACORN's chief executive officer says that the group gets most of its money from members and other supporters and that its operations would continue even if it is cut off from government grants.


www.cnn.com...

The key words, which I highlighted, are grants, not contracts.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Bravp, finemanm. I think you are one of the few "lawyers" on here that went to law school



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join