I read post 3, the problem with that is if you specify what they did wrong other organizations that have done very similar things to abuse their government contracts will not face similar penalties making the punishment clearly biased. And if you don't specify what they did wrong you're banning them from funding for no listed reason which is just stupid since you're doing it for a reason. Either way I don't see how it is valid as an act of congress as opposed to waiting until the next budget bill when you just choose to not renew their funding without an official ban. But of course that wouldn't help election campaigns as much as this BS does so they choose to do it the wrong way.
Basicly Gramage because the amendment does not retroactively take away money ACORN has already recived, rather it says no money in the future.
In previous cases the courts have never required Congress to show even rough consistency or proportionality in their decisions to fund or defund, particular organizations recieving Federal monies.
The Courts have agreed with Congress that each Congress has the absolute right to make appropriations and therefore also has the absolute right not to make appropriations.
Perhaps the confusion rises from Rachel Maddow making a
political point: Oh it is so mean and unfair of congress to give money to Defense Contractors and not to ACORN.
Legally, so what? Congress is allowed to take the action it did and her Article One argument is really a red herring.
As to your last sentence I might point out that the amendment passed with strong bipartisan support. Most Representatives and Senators find it
difficult to defend an organization caught on video violating the types of laws that most of their constituents both know and care about.
