ACORN is suing the U.S. government over a law passed recently by Congress that bars the controversial community group from receiving federal money.
In a complaint filed this morning in U.S. District Court in New York, ACORN charges that the law is unconstitutional, because it's a bill of attainder -- that is, it targets a specific individual or group for punishment.
The complaint, brought on behalf of ACORN by the Center for Constitutional Rights, also mounts a broader push-back against ACORN's conservative critics. According to a draft version examined by TPMmuckraker, it claims that the law to defund ACORN was passed thanks to "a public relations campaign orchestrated by political forces" that are hostile to its work registering low-income voters. And it charges that ACORN "earned the animosity of political forces who are dedicated to the proposition that the fewer poor people who vote the better."
"It is outrageous to see Congress violating the Constitution for purposes of political grandstanding," said Bill Quigley of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Congress bowed to FOX News and joined in the scapegoating of an organization that helps average Americans going through hard times to get homes, pay their taxes, and vote. Shame on them."
In September -- in the wake of a scandal in which several ACORN employees were caught on camera giving advice to two people posing as a pimp and a prostitute about how to evade tax laws -- Congress passed the Defund ACORN Act, a measure pushed by Republican House Leader John Boehner which cut off all federal funding from the group.
Critics of the bill immediately argued that it was unconstitutional, thanks to the Constitution's prohibition on bills of attainder. The courts have long held unconstitutional any acts of Congress that apply either to specific individuals, or to easily ascertainable members of a group, in order to punish them without a trial.
Said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) at the time:
Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial, and that's what this Amendment does. Whatever one may think of an organization, the Constitution's clear ban on Bills of Attainder is there for the protection of all of our liberties.
In the new complaint, ACORN notes that, even before Congress passed the Act, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service warned in a written report that singling out ACORN "may well" may well be unconstitutional. And it also points out that, in introducing the bill, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) declared on the floor of the Senate: "Somebody has to go after ACORN. Well, I suggest today, on the floor of the Senate, that 'somebody' is each and every U.S. Senator."
In addition, the complaint argues that the funding ban has done real harm to the organization and those it aims to serve. Since the law went into effect last month, it charges, the group has been force to lay off employees, close offices, and "drastically" reduce services to low and moderate income people. In addition, "many organizations partnering with ACORN cut off relationships with ACORN for fear of being tainted by association with ACORN."
We reported in September on how the defunding bill would affect ACORN's work on behalf of low-income people, according to the group.
The complaint names Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and OMB Director Peter Orszag as defendants, as their agencies have enforced the law.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Johann
November 12, 2009 10:25 AM
Go Acorn.
Continue to support the idea of democracy in America.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 12, 2009 10:38 AM in reply to Johann
Democracy? Is this the new code word for criminal enterprise?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
November 12, 2009 10:40 AM in reply to Silence
No, that one is 'the Republican party'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 12, 2009 10:58 AM in reply to Why oh why
oh snap!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
November 12, 2009 10:59 AM in reply to Why oh why
...AND BLACKWATER
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
November 12, 2009 11:08 AM in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird
ACORN should change its name to 'Ze', then it could get billions in new government contracts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
November 12, 2009 12:20 PM in reply to Why oh why
or Xee
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
November 12, 2009 11:11 AM in reply to Why oh why
or KBR/Halliburton (since, last i checked, ACORN's work didn't directly lead to any U.S. servicemen being electrocuted).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truthseeker77
November 12, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to Silence
Silence, what was done to ACORN was constitutional or unconstitutional? And why?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hallam
November 12, 2009 6:53 PM in reply to truthseeker77
The constitution prohibits bills of attainder, this is obviously a bill of attainder. It singles out Acorn and applies penalties to them.
I really don't see how any argument could be made to the contrary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kenneth Thomas
November 12, 2009 1:00 PM in reply to Johann
Hooray!
There was a great video at Huffpo of Alan Grayson going after the Republicans on how this is a bill of attainder.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 12, 2009 10:31 AM
I don't know the defenses, but they would seem to have a colorable argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Old Grouch
November 12, 2009 10:37 AM
Please go, ACORN. You've tarnished your brand irreparably by this point. The good you do (and you do) can be taken up by others with better control over their people. THe damage you do is entirely to yourself.
I never thought I'd see an organization that made MoveOn look sensible by comparison. Guess I'm not too old to be surprised once in a while.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
November 12, 2009 11:02 AM in reply to The Old Grouch
Did Blackwater control it's murders? How about Halliburton/KBR rapists?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Old Grouch
November 12, 2009 11:51 AM in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird
Your comment is pointless. ACORN has nothing to do with Blackwater. And I think you know that.
ACORN is a political liability and frankly, from my contacts with them over the years, an organization that tips the good/bad balance at about 51%-49%. The good they do manage to accomplish can still be done, albeit without their handy target name attached to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
November 12, 2009 12:23 PM in reply to The Old Grouch
That's the POINT.
Blackwater MURDERED people.
Halliburton ELECTROCUTED our soldiers.
And you think ACORN is worse? What is it about registering poor people to vote that you don't like?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
November 12, 2009 11:05 AM in reply to The Old Grouch
Yeah Grouch, let's ignore due process because Sean Hannity and Glen Beck have "tarnished" their reputation. Please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Old Grouch
November 12, 2009 11:52 AM in reply to Shrubbit
Is there any logic to your "argument" at all? Or did you stop development at about the fourth-grade level?
(With apologies to any rightfully offended fourth-graders...)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
November 12, 2009 3:56 PM in reply to The Old Grouch
OG, you want Logic?
Since you ask.
ACORN is being singled out for punishment because they registered "Mickey Mouse" and "Donald Duck" to vote. What the Radical Right, and you, are ignoring here is that ACORN is required, by law, to forward ALL names they register to the authorities. They did this, and went even further by sending lists of names they felt were bogus. The Radical Right screamed "Voter Fraud" even though if anyone had shown up to vote using those names, they would have to have shown identification to prove that they were actually "Mickey Mouse" or "Donald Duck".
Therefore - no "Voter Fraud" or fraudlent votes took place.
On the other hand, there are companies who have taken actions which have killed Americans and those companies, BlackWater (Xe) and Halliburton are enjoying continued massive government contracts.
The only other difference is that Xe and Halliburton are making massive donations to the re-election campaigns of Congressmen and Congresswomen.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
November 12, 2009 11:28 AM in reply to The Old Grouch
That's right, ACORN. If you didn't want to get raped, you shouldn't have been wearing such suggestive garb. If you didn't want to get pulled over, you shouldn't have been driving around in such a nice neighborhood, looking as swarthy as you do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
November 12, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to The Old Grouch
Your comment is pointless. Age has nothing to do with surprise. Perhaps you are senile?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
November 12, 2009 12:22 PM in reply to The Old Grouch
It doesn't matter what missteps ACORN might ever have taken. This was about the right, finding another enemy to demonize ("George Soros"; "Michael Moore"; "ACORN"... all the same shit).
They tried taking down MoveOn.org. Problem was, there was too much strength and money involved. Then, someone in the VRWC discovered the relatively-miniscule and completely-powerless ACORN, and it was like their first blow job, I assure you.
I mean, here is a weak alliance of local organizations, set up to help poor people, with zero clout... and oh, what's this? They're enfranchising people of color, to vote against us? Welllll...
Grouch, there are missteps in every organization. The big ones generally slide. The only reason you've even heard of ACORN, let alone consider them to be librul villains, is because they were always too small-time and unconnected to fight back.
Funny thing happened, on the way to ACORN's national crucifixion: they became nationally-known. Just the way the right wanted it. But this had consequences; enough to start gathering them just enough support, so that when the time came... this.
Bullies always hate it, when weaklings turn into The Karate Kid. This time, it may not be so easy for the right to deal with them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dogger
November 12, 2009 2:10 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
Well said. ACORN became a target not for the wrongs of a few, but rather for the good done by the vast majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
November 13, 2009 11:23 AM in reply to Dogger
Agreed. ACORN was providing a service to poor and minority people (voters) who were likely to vote Democratic. Therefore, the Republicans, who are into voter suppression, decided to take them down because ACORN was effective in getting out Democratic votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
November 12, 2009 10:51 AM
Good for ACORN!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eric the red
November 12, 2009 10:53 AM
Sure looks like a Bill of Attainder to me. The problem is that the lawsuit is bad politically. It will keep Acorn as an issue that republican can continue to be outraged about.
The real solution to the Acorn problem is to dissolve the organization and re-create it under a different name. The work that Acorn does should continue, but it's name has been tarnished by the wing-nuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Old Grouch
November 12, 2009 11:00 AM in reply to eric the red
ACORN's name has been tarnished by their inability to keep their own people in line. Rule #1 in the political arena (and that is most definitely where they are playing) is never give your opponents ammunition.
Time for them to go. While I can defend the positive things they have done, they are a liability in the larger sense, and this is not about them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brantlamb
November 12, 2009 11:39 AM in reply to The Old Grouch
This ignores the fact that the video that they most like to use as the "confirmation" that the ACORN employees were doing something illegal was reported by the ACORN employee to law enforcement. She also joked with the people that she had knocked off her husband; she's been married twice, and both men are very much alive. FOX got to make much more of this than it ever was.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
November 12, 2009 12:50 PM in reply to brantlamb
Exactly, brant. There was enough truth in the steps that ACORN took, to remedy the wrong done by people working under their auspices (such as what you cite), to render them not guilty; righteous even.
But almost nobody in mainstream America ever heard about that. Nobody except Leftie blog-readers ever found out that the only reason it was revealed that voting canvassers tried to register "Mickey Mouse" was because ACORN itself turned these people in.
And why? Simply because ACORN, not being the NAACP or PFAW or even MoveOn.org, did not have a major, well-funded p.r. apparatus that could counter the right-wing slime machine.
So what happened next? Mainstream liberals got comfortable, chuckling along with Fox "News", about what a pack of cards these wacky colored people were. And in doing so, they proved themselves to be tools and idiots.
I do not predict that attacks on ACORN will stop now; they'll likely go into overdrive. But now, they're poised for a MAJOR Constitutional victory (passing such targeted, grandstanding legislation was just plain DUMB). They're not going to have to go out of business, change their name, or whatever.
They're just going to score one big, historical WIN. And I will predict that, 20 years from now, progressive politicans will vie for the endorsement of a re-energized and bigger, more powerful ACORN, all because of this victory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenner
November 12, 2009 6:53 PM in reply to brantlamb
And here in Houston, the fake pimp and hooker were thrown out of the Acorn office. They were thrown out in most cities, see that on Fox? Neither did I.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
November 12, 2009 12:27 PM in reply to The Old Grouch
And Blackwater? Sorry, Xe? Letting them kill 17 people in cold blood is "keeping your people in line?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
November 12, 2009 1:49 PM in reply to Cal Gal
It tarnished Blackwater's name too. Funny thing is, in their case the money kept coming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
igotmyreasons
November 12, 2009 4:12 PM in reply to The Old Grouch
Sure, and if ACORN was running for public office, this might make some sense.
By this logic most major corporations "have got to go" too. Why the double standard?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
November 12, 2009 11:07 AM in reply to eric the red
Never be fearful of doing what is right.
And do not accommodate Fascists - they will be back no matter what you do.
Democracy does not work when only rich people vote.
They don't care about prostitutes ....Republicans love them.
And they don't care about tax evasion...they move their companies off-shore to avoid them.
They hate real Democracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 12, 2009 11:08 AM in reply to eric the red
"but it's name has been tarnished by the wing-nuts"
Really? I think they have done it to themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
November 12, 2009 12:01 PM in reply to Odel Roo
What did they do to themselves? A couple of wingnuts released a hacked up video that nobody in their right minds should believe., A bunch of morons start yelling 'look it here, look it here". There was no demonstration of any wrong doing. These days, you just need to yell shit over and over. It doesn't have to be true. The video I saw looked like a really bad SNL skit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
November 12, 2009 2:35 PM in reply to An Outhouse
It does look like bad SNL skit... unfortunately it was not a skit. It was real and it did happen and because of the the way the ACORN reps handled the matter it hurt ACORN.
Lets say this was the United Way... if the same thing happened and their reps had behaved similarly United Way would be tarnished too.
However you want to dismiss this did happen is irrelevant... it did, they fucked and hurt the brand - end of story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
November 13, 2009 11:42 AM in reply to Odel Roo
"Lets say this was the United Way... if the same thing happened and their reps had behaved similarly United Way would be tarnished too."
Wrong. The United Way would and should do the same thing ACORN did: Fire those "employes"/"volunteers".
In what way does one or two bad apples, once discovered and excised completely from an organization, reflect poorly on that organization?
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ajw93
November 12, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to eric the red
True, that would allow them to try and keep providing services. But I think there should at least be a rump organization to pursue the suit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baba2nde
November 12, 2009 11:50 AM in reply to eric the red
Granted, it may not be so good politically, but it serves a higher purpose: preserving democracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
November 12, 2009 11:59 AM in reply to baba2nde
pish posh. 'democracy' is just partisan politics' bitch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
November 12, 2009 11:57 AM in reply to eric the red
The bill was never meant to hold up legally. Its purpose was for grandstanding and getting wingnut names in the news.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benjoya
November 12, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to An Outhouse
ding ding ding. we have a winner!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
November 12, 2009 2:34 PM in reply to benjoya
But was that really worth opening themselves up to this lawsuit, that would assure ACORN a highly-publicized Constitutional victory?*
* = Disclaimer: However, if they take it all the way to the Supreme Court, we may just see another 5-4 vote along Federalist Society lines: "It's all right, we've got this."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TM
November 12, 2009 10:59 AM
Here's Rep. Alan Grayson destroying a repub rep from GA over Bill of Attainders and the Anti-ACORN bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbVQr_RtUA8&fmt=18
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bigbee
November 12, 2009 11:08 AM
Can someone point me to the final text of the bill? Did Obama sign it into law?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
decisivemoment
November 12, 2009 11:10 AM in reply to bigbee
It was attached to an important student financial aid bill. When the president lacks a line-item veto, these things happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes
November 12, 2009 12:53 PM in reply to decisivemoment
The de-fund ACORN provision is in the continuing resolution that was passed when Congress failed to pass the appropriations bills by Sept 30.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
decisivemoment
November 12, 2009 11:09 AM
I'm absolutely with them on this. If this doesn't get tossed out, any federal contractor is subject to the political whims of Congress. It ought to give every federal vendor pause about doing business with the government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 12, 2009 11:25 AM in reply to decisivemoment
Note that not a single war-profiteering federal contractor/vendor has opposed the amendment. Not one. If there was even the remotest chance that the true scum would be denied even a penny from their on-going looting they would be screaming from the highest mountaintops about how the legislation would cripple the war on terror.
Short version: Can you say "The fix is in" (again).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxanne
November 12, 2009 11:12 AM
ACORN is smart to sue. Despite what the workers on those video tapes showed, there was no actual commission of a crime. Remember, the advice ACORN gave the pimp and hooker, they never actually followed through on it. They didn't fill out paper work and returned it and began some type of fraudulent activity.
Second, the voter fraud that fox and the Republicans accuse ACORN of is bogus. You can't vote without proper ID and you can't get the ID required without a birth certificate, which is the whole fear of the idiots in the GOP. ACORN only registers voters. The voter then, has to show up with the proper ID and they can vote. Got that!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
November 12, 2009 11:20 AM
This was an occasion when Obama should have followed the lead of Bush - issue a signing statement attached to that bill, that stated that the anti-ACORN provision would not be enforced. Too bad our President only adopts the bad ideas of Bush.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dr Lemming
November 12, 2009 11:30 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
What would that have accomplished? Obama would have been vilified in the right-wing press. That the tactic was the same one used by Bush would have been conveniently ignored; here would be another example of is dictatorial inclinations.
Presidents need line-item veto power. It works well at the state level, and given the added complexity of federal legislation I would think it would make the system run much better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
November 12, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to Dr Lemming
so... obama would not have been vilified in the right wing press if he had used a line item veto???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brantlamb
November 12, 2009 12:24 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
At the federal level, there currently doesn't exist any such thing as a line-item veto. Go read the constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
November 13, 2009 11:37 AM in reply to brantlamb
Brant: Does everything have to be spelled out completely for you?
What fkaZ was questioning is:
IF the Federal Government had a line item veto, and IF Obama had used it, would the Radical Right have refrained from vilifying him for using it?
Now, be a man/woman and respond to the question: "Would the radical right refrained from vilifying Obama?"
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcjam
November 12, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to Dr Lemming
Dr Lemming said: Obama would have been vilified in the right-wing press.
FTFY....
"Obama would has been, is and will always be vilified in the right-wing press."
Now please explain why this concerns you so much?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dr Lemming
November 12, 2009 11:26 AM
The defunding provision is harrassment, pure and simple. Folks knew it was unconstitutional when they voted for it, but that didn't matter. The whole point was to send a message.
Acorn HAS to challenge the law. They also need to retool their organization so they are less vulnerable to right-wing attacks. A name change and new policies would seem to be in order. Or maybe a new organization is necessary.
All that said, it is disturbing to see how effective the right-wing smear has been -- and how easily Democrats caved on this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
November 12, 2009 11:47 AM in reply to Dr Lemming
The effectiveness of right-wing smear is (IMO) just the latest in the general oppression of people by those in power that has dominated mankind's affairs since the beginning of the "Paternal Age".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
November 12, 2009 2:44 PM in reply to Dr Lemming
And as far as the aforementioned defense contractors (many themselves with legal misconduct on their registers), they had damned well better hope that: [a] ACORN wins, and; [b] The Supremes don't find some specious reason to toss out such a win.
Because if that happens, the Graysons and Sanders and Kuciniches of this world will use that law in perpetuity to rain down fiery Hell on those people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
November 12, 2009 3:41 PM in reply to Dr Lemming
Democrats caving.
That is one of the shameful things about this whole mess: That the Democrats voted for this defunding without adding provisions for defunding XE, Halliburton, and other federal contractors whose actions have been much worse than ACORN's.
If the Republicans can add provisions like this to unrelated legislation, why can't Democrats?
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kenneth Thomas
November 12, 2009 4:38 PM in reply to Johann
Second that! I'm really unhappy that so many Democrats caved. It's one reason I was so glad to see Grayson's speech defending ACORN, which someone posted elsewhere in this thread.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baba2nde
November 12, 2009 11:43 AM
What took ACORN so long? Rep Alan Grayson pretty much laid bare this course of action for them on 10/28/09, watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKz5ZHM8kFM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ubeeno
November 12, 2009 11:44 AM
LOL, enter the bottom feeding, blood sucking attorneys! LOL
RT
www.ultimate-privacy.cz.tc
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
voreason
November 12, 2009 12:11 PM
It seems to me that there is a fundamental constitutional principle to uphold here. Acorn is right to sue and will likely win, unless the reactionary wing of the Supreme Court (where this will eventually end up) decides to rewrite the Constitution on its own. Now wouldn't that be ironic?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
November 12, 2009 4:10 PM in reply to voreason
Ironic?
It's not even the first time it has happened.
See Gore vs. Bush 2000 where the Supreme Court changed the Constitutional provisions for electing a president.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
S1m0n
November 12, 2009 12:32 PM
The "bill of attainder" claim looks pretty sound to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
igotmyreasons
November 12, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to S1m0n
I mean, these bozos called it the "Defund ACORN" law... a kid in law school could take this case.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
November 12, 2009 12:32 PM
Classic bill of attainder. Let's see Scalia squirm his way out of this one. Maybe he'll argue corporations (assuming ACORN is a non-profit corporation) aren't "people." LOL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
November 12, 2009 12:37 PM
Congress can punish ACORN but not any corporation that allows their female employees to be raped by coworkers. In fact, let's just ignore the whole thing, k?
Can I hear a big F U!?!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JTHC
November 12, 2009 4:25 PM
Sorry guys, but ACORN is not likely to prevail in this lawsuit because they haven't been "punished" by a deprivation of life, liberty or property. They've certainly been "targeted," which is the first requirement of a Bill of Attainder, but aside from that they haven't lost anything they had a right to in the first place. What Congress has done is prevent ACORN from receiving any future federal funding, and Congress has plenary power of the purse. It would be different if Congress tried to confiscate funds it had already paid to ACORN, but that's not the case here.
The best that ACORN could do is argue that they have a right to funding as an entitlement, but Congress defines entitlements in the first place. So in the end, ACORN has no substantive right to be funded from federal dollars, and it can't claim to have been punished because the federal government refuses to give it money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hallam
November 12, 2009 6:57 PM in reply to JTHC
Nonsense.
Loss of federal grants already awarded is loss of property. Loss of the right to apply for grants is a property interest.
Acorn clearly has standing to sue here as they are the subject of the bill of attainder.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
waywuwei
November 12, 2009 4:26 PM
GO ACORN! Too bad they can't impeach Republicans who pass unconstitutional laws.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
November 13, 2009 11:49 AM in reply to waywuwei
In this case, there would also be many Democrats impeached.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HermanNewticks
November 12, 2009 5:01 PM
I'm all for ACORN suing, seeking an injunction against enforcement of this, or any, unconstitutional law.
But, note, this was a draft complaint for a bill that has not yet become a law.
"According to a draft version examined by TPMmuckraker, it claims that the law to defund ACORN was passed thanks to 'a public relations campaign orchestrated by political forces' that are hostile to its work registering low-income voters."
Recall, you need bicameral approval and the president's signature to make a bill a law. So far, Boehner's bill has not even passed one house. HR 3571, Boehner's bill, was introduced and referred to subcommittee, but not voted on. Another bill, H.R. 3221, to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, was amended to include the offending (offensive) language, and was passed by the House, but it has not passed the Senate.
There is room yet for Congress not to pass an illegal bill of attainder. Let's hope for some spine from Senate Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dilirius
November 12, 2009 5:27 PM
Shame on any Democrat who votes for this or through inaction allows it to become law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
November 12, 2009 5:45 PM
GO ACORN!
I can't believe the lack of support Acorn has received from the Democratic party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winski
November 12, 2009 7:10 PM
The US CONSTITUTION prohibits ANY ORGANIZATION from being singled out by the Congress under the Bill of Attainder provision for retribution.
Clearly NONE of the republican JERKS that are trying to make this happen can read.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pvel
November 12, 2009 7:55 PM
I was surprised how easily this passed and how many Dems went along. Our Democratic reps are pushovers and pussies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jay
November 13, 2009 12:24 AM
Here is the actual complaint against the US Government:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16084739/ACORN-Sues-Congress-Over-Bill-of-Attainder
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?