Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: Culture Wars |
House Ban on Acorn Grants Is Ruled Unconstitutional |
2009-12-12 |
![]() A judge at the United States District Court in Brooklyn issued a preliminary injunction that nullifies the resolution and requires the government to honor existing contracts with the group and review its applications for new grants unless the Obama administration appeals the decision. The court ruled that the resolution amounted to a "bill of attainder," a legislative determination of guilt without trial, because it specifically punishes one group. ![]() In the opinion, Judge Nina Gershon wrote of Acorn, "They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt." The Justice Department said it was still reviewing the ruling Friday night. Judge Gershon's opinion made a point of separating the court's ruling from the controversy surrounding Acorn, which is short for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ![]() Jules Lobel, a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the suit on behalf of Acorn, said the resolution was the first time Congress had ever singled out one group for punishment. "Whenever you challenge a statute of Congress, it's always a significant political battle," Mr. Lobel said. The chief executive of Acorn, Bertha Lewis, issued a statement calling the ruling a victory for the group and "the citizens who work through Acorn to improve their communities and promote responsible lending and homeownership." In a lawsuit filed last month, Acorn argued that it was penalized by Congress "without an investigation" and had been forced to cut programs that counsel struggling homeowners and to lay off workers. |
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
#5 Another Clinton appointee. Federal judgeships - the gift that keeps on giving. |
Posted by: Zhang Fei 2009-12-12 08:28 |
#4 Does that mean that earmarks - which often benefit a single group - are unconsitutional as well? My.... my.... |
Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-12-12 06:40 |
#3 interesting legal theory, that Congress cannot single out a group for punishment, but they can and often do single out a group for gain and benefit? Some are more equal than others? |
Posted by: NoMoreBS 2009-12-12 06:23 |
#2 So it is legal for the government to turn the money spigot on but illegal to turn it off once it is turned on. Look at this from the opposite perspective: It is legal for government to take money from us to give to someone but illegal for them to let us keep our money once they have started taking it from us. THAT right there is a telling commentary of the unsustainable idiotic philosophy of the left. |
Posted by: crosspatch 2009-12-12 02:48 |
#1 The court ruled that the resolution amounted to a "bill of attainder," a legislative determination of guilt without trial, because it specifically punishes one group. Charles I is laughing in his grave. The royal judiciary has just taken back the power of the purse won in the English Civil War. There is no entitlement to the public treasury other than that determined by the legislative branch. It is not a bill of attainder taking money away as punishment, as in forfeiture, but the withholding of money that belongs to the people. The Founding Fathers would have impeached this judge before the week was out if this was attempted in their time. |
Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-12-12 02:05 |