And making it constitutional means Diebold, Blackwater, and many more companies would be forced to never get another government contract.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDRvRShXPNc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDRvRShXPNc
Defund Acorn Act blatently unconstitutional
- Thread starter gramage
- Start date
LMFAO. Ooooooops fumble! I lost count of the companies. Can you say 'Goose Gander'?
To the usual group, are there any lies contained here?
Perhaps Rachel Maddow is secretly a Constitutional Scholar?
“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 the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.” Seemingly therefore the issue hinges upon whether once an organization such as ACORN receives federal funds, can it ever be defunded or do you now have a right to future federal monies have they become your property? Seemingly, Dr. Maddow feels that once Congress appropriates funds it can never deny funds.
Only six acts of Congress have ever been invalidated as a violation of Article One. None involved the congressional disbursement power to a non-governmental agency.
There are no decisions which hold that the denial of federal funds to an organization such as ACORN constitutes legislative action engaged in as a means of punishing individuals for wrongdoing.
Indeed each Congress having the absolute right to make appropriations also has the absolute right not to make appropriations, in fact all U.S. Government contracts explicitly state this, and courts have never required even rough consistency or proportionality in congressional decisions to either fund or defund.
The bottom line is that a nonprofit such as ACORN has no vested property or contractual right to receive federal contracts or grants.
Rachel Maddow is seemingly making political rather than legal points.
text of the amendment
“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 the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.” Seemingly therefore the issue hinges upon whether once an organization such as ACORN receives federal funds, can it ever be defunded or do you now have a right to future federal monies have they become your property? Seemingly, Dr. Maddow feels that once Congress appropriates funds it can never deny funds.
Only six acts of Congress have ever been invalidated as a violation of Article One. None involved the congressional disbursement power to a non-governmental agency.
There are no decisions which hold that the denial of federal funds to an organization such as ACORN constitutes legislative action engaged in as a means of punishing individuals for wrongdoing.
Indeed each Congress having the absolute right to make appropriations also has the absolute right not to make appropriations, in fact all U.S. Government contracts explicitly state this, and courts have never required even rough consistency or proportionality in congressional decisions to either fund or defund.
The bottom line is that a nonprofit such as ACORN has no vested property or contractual right to receive federal contracts or grants.
Rachel Maddow is seemingly making political rather than legal points.
text of the amendment
Another example of how myopic the mind of a GOPer is!.....
The problems we face today will not be solved by the minds that created them
What State are you a citizen of?
NONE??????
Then you need to apply first for a VISA to come here and secondly for CITIZENSHIP before you can argue this
See how many in the GOP would vote to dis-entitle Haliburton. For those who do not know the former chairman was none other than Dr. Evil himself, Dick Cheny. The GOP only pull out their indignation when a liberal or liberal organization is the subject of it.
I've never considered myself an expert in constitutional law, but I can hear and read plain english. She's got a point and I don't see any flaws in it. I also didn't know she was doctor either, PHD or MD, which.
Legalese is not my strong suit. I'm more comfortable with diplo-speak.
PS, I may not be a citizen of your country, although it's a safe bet Maddow is, yet maybe as an outsider and one not prone to polar politics as many in the USA are, I may have a better view of the situation. When you fall back on that 'your not a citizen of the US or a member of either party, so you don't have the right' you show how thin-skinned you are and how little faith you have in your position. Everyone has right to offer an opinion, especially on this BB.
When you or others accuse me of being leftist or socialist or commie, you show your ignorance and a loss of short term memory. You look at things way to hard and see nothing but black and white, even when there's over 1000 shades of grey out there.
I've explained many times, sometimes in slow easy to understand phrases, that I'm a generally centrist leaning to the left but supporting conservative viewpoints when they merit. With the either/or positions forced upon US citizens by the two party system you lose that flexibility and that may be your greatest political weakness.
Am I missing something?
When was receipt of govt. funding a constitutionally protected right in the first place??
When was receipt of govt. funding a constitutionally protected right in the first place??
Perhaps she has a political argument However, she doesn't have a very good legal argument. And when she is making an argument about Constitutionality that is obviously a legal argument.
Presumably you are thinking of someone else. Since I didn't post such a statement.
'Presumably you are thinking of someone else. Since I didn't post such a statement."
If you'll note I put 'PS' at the beginning of that comment meaning 'Papasmurf', my bad that it wasn't clear.
If you'll note I put 'PS' at the beginning of that comment meaning 'Papasmurf', my bad that it wasn't clear.
I suspect, being a Rhodes Scholar, with a PHD in politics from Oxford, she knows a thing or two about research and is a little closer to brilliant than most of us on this BB.
She's also seen the dark side having been raised in a conservative Roman Catholic household and community.
Oooh, wow she has a Doctorate.... I'm so impressed and to think that a number of us on this board have one as well.
The real question is what practical experience/knowledge does she have in U.S. Constitutional Interpretation.
The words I used were most of us on this BB. I never said everyoneOooh, wow she has a Doctorate.... I'm so impressed and to think that a number of us on this board have one as well.
The real question is what practical experience/knowledge does she have in U.S. Constitutional Interpretation.
There was a challenge to her intelligence put forward on this board and how could she say and surmise what she does. The fact is she has a doctorate from Oxford and it specializes in politics, not bad for starters, she's Rhode Scholar which is not too shabby either. Those are facts that reflect she's pretty smart. My comments about the membership on this BB is based on what I read.
Do you know the answer about her knowledge or are you just throwing out a question? If you don't know, then it's a very weak challenge and really just an attempt to muddy the water.
So, you challenge her knowledge on the American Constitution. Are you a Constitutional lawyer? exports on the constitution screw up too, Remember Justice Holmes and his thinking on the sterilization question. Yes it was his opinion, but it carried some weight for a while and cause 100's of people harm.
I don't think the issue is whether a group can be defunded, but rather whether a group can be targeted by an act of congress for being barred from receiving funds. If in the next budget Acorn received no funding it would not be a constitutional issue but it would also be less politically advantageous to the people pushing it.
It seems to me playing political games has made something very simple into something far more complex and possibly unconstitutional then it needs to be.
Gramage that would be a valid point if the amendment said ACORN give back the money the Government has already given you. However, it does not, rather it says no further money, which indeed is what you say in your second sentence.
But based on the amendment saying individuals cannot be singled out in this way I don't see the distinction between barring them from suture funds and what you're talking about. I am not expert on these things (this is part of the reason I want lies kept out of the news as per an older thread) but what she said made a logical sense to me in that I don't see how you can bar one group by name, or bar one group based on a criteria congress does not seem interested in applying to other groups the same way.
