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

cmac2012 · #1 10-02-2009, 12:31 AM

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D Florida, voted against the measure to defund Acorn because he considered it an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

A bill of attainder, forbidden in Article I, Section IX of the constitution, is a legislative act that imposes punishment on a specific person or group without a trial or hearing.

http://www.postonpolitics.com/2009/09/is-de-funding-acorn-an-unconstitutional-bill-of-attainder/

If the vote against Acorn is based on fraud by a group receiving federal funds, or promotion of or engagement in prostitution, then most of the large military contractors are up for being defunded on the same grounds.

Dyncorp, or certainly numerous of its employees in Bosnia, are widely considered guilty of not just counseling someone else on a prostituion scheme, but of running its own, a large one involving juveniles shipped in from out of country.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/010106sexslavescandal.htm

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2002/08/06/dyncorp/index.html

And if fraud at Acorn is the main target, will it turn out that the bill to defund them will also apply to Halliburton/KBR and the other large contractors possibly guilty, excuse me, GUILTY of defrauding the US govt? That's guilty and paid large fines in many cases.

But Dyncorp, Lockheed, Halliburton/KBR, and on and on are still getting large, LARGE govt. contracts. Meanwhile Rrs in congress are out to save the republic by getting rid of a group who has actually done some good here and there. Further, the undercover sting pair went to other Acorn office, I can't find how many, but did not get the response they wanted. Those videos have not been posted.

I'm not saying Acorn doesn't need to clean house in a big way. I'm just a bit curious at the laser like focus on this one group. I wonder why that is . . . wait, could this be the Obama corollary of Monica Lewinsky/Paula Jones, a handy club for Rrs to beat up on him with? They wouldn’t stoop to something so transparent, would they?

Flaming liberal Rachel Maddow has done some good reporting on this although she’s not the only one talking about it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#33027963

Chas H · #2 10-02-2009, 12:42 AM

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.

cmac2012 · #3 10-02-2009, 12:57 AM

Perhaps. But are the grounds for dismissal being improperly applied to this relatively small player for political reasons? And not applied to others on the same grounds?

The contrast between Dyncorp's prostitution problem and Acorn's are gigantic.

Something tawdry here beyond a few Acorn employees.

Chas H · #4 10-02-2009, 01:01 AM

Certainly politics are afoot, but that doesn't make it a bill of attainder. Corporations make donations to campaigns and employ constituents. Acorn doesn't do much of that.

cmac2012 · #5 10-02-2009, 04:11 AM

Here's a better version of it:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/477607/oops_the_acorn_ban_could_snag_lockheed_catholic_charities

Continuing the GOP's attack on the poor people's organizing group ACORN, the House and Senate -- by wide margins -- have voted to bar ACORN from receiving federal funding on account of fraudulent activity.

Let's hope the legislators enjoy their gloat and then get right back to business. Passed in a flurry of bloviating bluster, The Defund ACORN law is written so broadly that it just could come in very handy.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D of Florida) has already asked the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to find out which other contractors might be caught in the ACORN ban-net.

When it comes to fraud felons receiving federal funds -- Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman top the list, with 20 fraud cases between them. Where military contractors go, the cash-for-killers at Blackwater (now XE) are rarely far behind. (Indeed, see Jeremy Scahill's story.) And then there's Halliburton and the magically disappeared federal cash for troop services and Iraq reconstruction. (Has anyone seen that $9 billion? )

Fraud by recipients of the $750 billion financial bailout program is bound to show up soon. Earlier this year, federal investigators said they had opened 20 criminal probes into possible securities fraud, tax violations, insider trading and other crimes by TARP recipients.

If Congress - including scores of Democrats -- can get this hot and bothered over the $50 million ACORN's supposed to have received over the past 15 years they're going to become hysterical about the BILLIONS received by banks in the blink of a brokers' eyelid.

Not to be left out, several supposedly faith-based groups, recipients of federal grants, currently stand accused of misspending taxpayer cash to cover for child-molesting clergy.

To name just one, in at least two cities Catholic Charities stands accused of using federal funds to settle or cover up sex abuse charges, but that didn't stop Catholic Charities from receiving a federal government contract this August for $100 million to work with victims of natural disasters.

Bankers, brokers, bomb-makers, and let us not forget the child molesters... This could all get very interesting very fast. I can hardly wait to turn on the television. Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck. Who's going to be first with the outrage?

t walgamuth · #6 10-02-2009, 05:55 AM

It is a political act with the skids greased by thinly veiled racism.

mgburg · #7 10-02-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D Florida, voted against the measure to defund Acorn because he considered it an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

A bill of attainder, forbidden in Article I, Section IX of the constitution, is a legislative act that imposes punishment on a specific person or group without a trial or hearing.

Nope...I think Rep. Wexler (D-FLA.) just mis-spoke...

JollyRoger · #8 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.

tankdriver · #9 10-02-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

It is a political act

right. I don't think anyone with any sense really finds one minutes long video of a particular ACORN rep counseling one case of an apparent pimp/prostitute as proof of pervasive high crimes.

ACORN was a target, and they got burned by one of their many counselors. That's all it takes. Unless you have the $$$ Dyncorp or Blackwater or Halliburton do.

It's obvious hypocrisy for the big guys to continue to get government funds, and is corruption as opposed to fraud, but they weren't funded. They were contracted.

Chas H · #10 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 · #11 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 · #12 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 · #13 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.

MTI · #14 01-26-2010, 04:59 PM

Undercover ACORN Filmmaker Under Arrest

The independent filmmaker who brought ACORN to its knees last year with an undercover expose was arrested this week along with three others, including the son of a federal prosecutor, and accused of trying to interfere with the phones at Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu's office.

From NYT:

All four of the people arrested in New Orleans were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony. At least two of the four people were dressed in telephone company work clothes and construction hats when they were arrested.

cmac2012 · #15 01-26-2010, 05:03 PM

Oops. Carrying self-righteousness a couple of steps too far.