Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Unintended Consequences - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JollyRoger · #1 10-02-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Congress funded Acorn; I think it can legally de-fund Acorn. De-funding here is not considered to be a punishment but an act of legislation.

Congress did not "fund" ACORN anymore than it "funded" Halliburton. ACORN holds government contracts, for which it is paid for doing work.

ACORN needs to get out of that business, IMO, and concentrate on what it does best, which is to organize the powerless into voting blocks. While I agree they are the victims of a political hit job, they are obviously a very poorly managed organization, and poor management is a good enough reason to end their participation in these type of contracts.

Chas H · #2 10-02-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Congress did not "fund" ACORN anymore than it "funded" Halliburton. ACORN holds government contracts, for which it is paid for doing work.

.

Congress gave funds-funds is money- to Acorn. The name of the mechanism accomplishing that funding isn't important. The action of revoking the funds is not a bill of attainder, which is the subject of this thread.

Emmerich · #3 10-03-2009, 02:27 AM

Funny how nobody brings up the constitutionality of certain acts of Congress as being specifically targeting a single group-especially one that is not in "favor". The 70's Windfall Profits Tax comes to mind....

aklim · #4 10-03-2009, 09:55 AM

There are only so many Haliburtons, Dynacorps, etc, etc. My excuse would be that I have no choice but to go to them. Of course the kickbacks make no neverminds.

Why do you think we put up with "cost overruns"? WTF!! You estimate something and bid on it with a lowball and then you bump up the costs? So what is the point of bidding then?

ACORN is a different story. Toss them and I look good. Keep them and the votes I get are suspect. Why not?

aklim · #5 10-03-2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Funny how nobody brings up the constitutionality of certain acts of Congress as being specifically targeting a single group-especially one that is not in "favor". The 70's Windfall Profits Tax comes to mind....

Or the AIG Tax. After all, they are targeting big corps. That makes them look good that they are going after the rich.