Originally posted by finemanm
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 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.
I think ACORN is a horrible organization and agree that this administration would not have been elected without them. I think what they do is
criminal and the videos speak for themselves. The fact remains that Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution is not meant in the way you are interpreting
it. It was meant to make sure the U.S. government did not fund or defund any specific organization if it supplied any advantage or disadvantage to
another competing organization. We can agree that there are other competing organizations that get money from the same sources as ACORN does, and
this law provides them a distinct advantage.
In few words, if I run a company like ACORN but I lean right, then I have as much right to government money as they do and if they take ACORN's money
then they should take mine as well.
All of the above is true, with the exception of due process of law. Everything I said above is opinion except for Article 1, and that is the problem.
ACORN, no matter how guilty they seem, deserves due process just like Charles Manson or any other notorious criminal.
Don't get me wrong, I HATE ACORN, and Dislike the Administration, but I believe we should follow the constitution to the letter. The rest of the law
can be moldable and dynamic, but the Constitution should be a Rock.
If we are going to take ACORNS money for fraudulent or criminal practices then we need to consider taking funding from the other groups like Black
Water that do the same.
We cannot pick and choose the parts of the Constitution that we want to use or ignore, we must consider it a line in the sand!
I really practice law in New York City. I do mostly criminal defense and a little civil rights litigation. 
