Acorn sues government over funding cuts.

[unregistered]

 

[Drixxx]

You didn't answer the question. What about the discontinued funding?

You can't single out individuals or groups of individuals for punishment without trial. It's pretty cut and dried. I don't know why the right wingers have such a hard time wrapping their brain around that fact.

 

[Ishmael]

You can't single out individuals or groups of individuals for punishment without trial. It's pretty cut and dried. I don't know why the right wingers have such a hard time wrapping their brain around that fact.

I'm going to bother to jump in here.

A decision to NOT do business with an individual or organization is NOT subject to a trial by peers. Period. The word 'punishment' does not apply in the least. If I decide to switch my business from company 'A' to company 'B', for whatever reason, am I now subject to suit from company 'A'?

Holder does have a point re. existing contracts, albeit in violation of the expressed will of congress. Fine, continue the contracts. But start a full court press investigation by the DOJ. Findings of criminality certainly would be cause for cancelation.

And the stench of criminal behavior has been hanging over ACORNs head now for a decade. They keep dodging the bullet by stating, "Oh, that was just a rogue employee and we fired them." The problem is they seem to merely replace one rogue with another.

I see that more than a few have posted with unrestrained glee the fact that ACORN will continue to be funded under existing contracts. I can only express my disgust with those individuals that seem to think the raping of the treasury is an act to be applauded. I would think that they would be as aghast at that form of rapine as they are corporate welfare. But that isn't the case, it appears they have decided that some rape is acceptable, or more precisely the reasons given for the rape. It's more than obvious that the victim is the same in both instances, the US taxpayer. "We're happy that you're getting raped for this reason, but morally outraged that you're getting raped for that reason." I can only shake my head in wonder at the logic behind those thoughts.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[Drixxx]

I'm going to bother to jump in here.

A decision to NOT do business with an individual or organization is NOT subject to a trial by peers. Period. The word 'punishment' does not apply in the least. If I decide to switch my business from company 'A' to company 'B', for whatever reason, am I now subject to suit from company 'A'?


Ishmael

Wrong!

In Cummins v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 323, this Court said, "A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial."

Section 304 was designed to apply to particular individuals. [n4] Just as the statute in the two cases mentioned, it "operates as a legislative decree of perpetual exclusion" from a chosen vocation. Ex parte Garland, supra, at 377. This permanent proscription from any opportunity to serve the Government is punishment, and of a most severe type.

 

[Drixxx]

Why don't you stop with the infantile elementary bullshit and answer the question. So, do you think a Federal Judge is going to order Congress to initiate another funding bill for ACORN and order them to all vote for it?

Don't be stupid. Stop being coy. You know the role of the court.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

You didn't answer the question. What about the discontinued funding?

I answered the question. You didn't like the answer, so you moved the goalpost.

To answer your current question, all existing contracts that the federal government has with ACORN are presumably valid once more, and ACORN can presumably collect on all monies owed through contract enforcement mechanisms.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The point is that judge isn't going to reverse the Congress.

It already did. It held that the Congress cannot unilaterally abrogate contracts without cause, and it held that Congress deliberately attempted to do so with respect to ACORN.

No amount of spinning on your point can change that basic court ruling.

 

[Drixxx]

The point is that judge isn't going to reverse the Congress.

They do it all the time. It's their job to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Karen Kraft]

They do it all the time. It's their job to interpret the Constitution.

No.

It is the job of the Supreme Court of the United States to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The circuit and district judges take direction from the opinions issued by the Supreme Court and, when they are pretty sure about something, they will cite to a Supreme Court decision and try to apply the law of that cited case to the facts of the case at bar. Under no circumstances do district court judges "interpret" the Constitution.

Next?

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

And what was the court's directive to the Congress?

That the legislation passed to punish ACORN was unenforceable.

 

[Karen Kraft]

And what was the court's directive to the Congress?

The Federal Judiciary has bizarre jurisdicitonal quirks. You can find judges througout the system and, if you locate one sympathetic to your cause, you attempt to get your issue before that judge. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't.

In most state (Several States) matters, the judges are concerned that their opinions not be overruled, as having a poor track record in that regard inhibits promotion up the career ladder. However, Article III judges (District, Circuit, SCOTUS) are life appointments so many of the older judges really don't care if they get overturned or not. They have topped out in their careers and pay little or no attention to anything they wish.

It would be easy to find a district judge someplace who would rule that displaying the U.S. flag in public school classrooms is unconstitutional because it might offend students who are offended by our flag. That's easy. The trick is to find a district court judge who not only will rule the way you like, but who is in a circuit that will uphold his/her decision on appeal.

Finding that Congress is not allowed to change its mind about funding something (a Constitutional enumerated and plenary power) [unconstitutional] is a joke -- soon to be overturned. Remember: it is CONGRESS who determines which courts hear which matters. Example: the Congress can pass a one-page law stating that enemy combatants shall be tried in military courts only. The end. See how that works?

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

So, how will the funds be re-instated at this stage?

I doubt ACORN knows or cares. They'll do their work according to the terms of their original contract(s), submit invoices to the government, and get paid. Just like any other federal contractor.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

I don't think so. How will this happen without appropriated funds?

It becomes an unfunded liability and the government's problem, not ACORN's problem.

Another example, the government had 70,045 Army enlistees for the most recent fiscal year. They had budgeted for 65,000. The 5,045 soldiers who came in once the budgeted quota had been met still got paid.

 

[Drixxx]

No.

It is the job of the Supreme Court of the United States to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The circuit and district judges take direction from the opinions issued by the Supreme Court and, when they are pretty sure about something, they will cite to a Supreme Court decision and try to apply the law of that cited case to the facts of the case at bar. Under no circumstances do district court judges "interpret" the Constitution.

Next?

You are playing semantics. All courts interpret the Constitution.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You can't single out individuals or groups of individuals for punishment without trial.

You can if the "punishment" is a policy/funding decision rather than an actual criminal conviction. Might not be a wise or fair move, but perfectly lawful. Generally speaking, that is; I'm not ruling out the possibility ACORN's lawyer might have a case in this particular instance.

 

[Karen Kraft]

You are playing semantics. All courts interpret the Constitution.

Wrong again.

Read what I read more carefully.

CliffNotes Version:

ONLY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES INTERPRETS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Oh..... and legal analysis is always a matter of semantics. That's precisely the point.

 

[Drixxx]

You can if the "punishment" is a policy/funding decision rather than an actual criminal conviction. Might not be a wise or fair move, but perfectly lawful. Generally speaking, that is; I'm not ruling out the possibility ACORN's lawyer might have a case in this particular instance.

Punishment and policy/funding decisions are two mutually exclusive reasons for ending contracts.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Wrong again.

Read what I read more carefully.

CliffNotes Version:

ONLY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES INTERPRETS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Oh..... and legal analysis is always a matter of semantics. That's precisely the point.

Ut oh.

The Constructionists are going to be all over you for that one.

 

[Drixxx]

Wrong again.

Read what I read more carefully.

CliffNotes Version:

ONLY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES INTERPRETS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Oh..... and legal analysis is always a matter of semantics. That's precisely the point.

More hair splitting. All courts interpret the Constitution.