It is currently 04/28/24 7:36 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 19 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/12/09 11:40 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
There is no question that Congress acted prematurely ~ and that the "no bill of attainder" clause in the Constitution was expressly violated ~ Sooz


November 12, 2009
Posted: November 12th, 2009 02:55 PM ET

From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart


(CNN)
- The embattled community organizing group ACORN filed a federal lawsuit Thursday challenging a law passed by Congress that denies it federal funding.

The congressional appropriations resolution specifically provides that no federal dollars be provided to ACORN "or any of ACORN's affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations."

In a release announcing the suit, an attorney for ACORN said Congress had overstepped its authority in singling out the organization for denial of federal funding.

"It's not the job of Congress to be the judge, jury, and executioner," Jules Lobel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said in the statement. "We have due process in this country, and our Constitution forbids lawmakers from singling out a person or group for punishment without a fair investigation and trial. Congress, as well as individuals and organizations must abide by the rule of law."

ACORN's lawsuit alleges that Congress' action is unconstitutional and seeks a court order prohibiting the federal government enforcing or complying with the congressional resolution.

The community organizing group came under increasing scrutiny in recent months after the release of videos produced by two conservative activists. The conservative filmmakers, posing as a pimp and a prostitute, sought advice from ACORN employees on setting up a brothel with underage girls from El Salvador. The activists recorded the videos in Baltimore and three other cities. The tapes show ACORN employees suggesting or condoning a series of illicit actions.

The release of the videos caused federal agencies including the Census Bureau to reconsider their ties to ACORN and precipitated a number of investigations by federal agencies into ACORN's conduct.

The law passed by Congress denying ACORN federal funding also came in the wake of the release of the controversial videos.

Update: In a statement e-mailed to CNN, a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, the Ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, called ACORN's suit "baseless."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... more-77556



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/12/09 11:50 am • # 2 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
My understanding is that bills of attainder are illegal... without exception.
On the other hand, it appears that ACORN's representatives acted illegally and, therefore, ACORN would also be guilty. That would have to be determined in a court of law.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/12/09 11:53 am • # 3 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
ok, apart from the brilliant minds on this board...who saw this coming?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/12/09 12:15 pm • # 4 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
oskar576 wrote:
My understanding is that bills of attainder are illegal... without exception.
On the other hand, it appears that ACORN's representatives acted illegally and, therefore, ACORN would also be guilty. That would have to be determined in a court of law.

Exactly, oskar ~ a bill of attainder is an act [in this case, a law] by Congress that judges someone or a group of someones guilty of a crime and punishes them without benefit of trial ~ it's an important guarantee of the separation of powers ~ in this case, Congress clearly over-rode the judiciary since the investigations have not yet been completed and a trial is a long way off into the future ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/12/09 12:27 pm • # 5 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Obama could always refuse to sign such a law. Of course, he may have already signed it in which case he goes down another notch in my esteem.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/12/09 12:38 pm • # 6 
It's similar to the clause inserted into the stimulus package last spring that would have prevented Illinois from receiving stimulus funds as long as Blagojevich was Governor.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/12/09 12:43 pm • # 7 
oskar576 wrote:
Obama could always refuse to sign such a law. Of course, he may have already signed it in which case he goes down another notch in my esteem.


It shouldn't have that effect on you. Bills that are passed always contain severability clauses, which declare that if any part of a bill is found to be unenforceable or unconstitutional, the rest of the bill remains in effect. There is often a question about the constitutionality of individual minor clauses of legislation, and the bills are of such overall importance that the President signs them and allows the judiciary to take up the question of the individual clauses in question.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/12/09 12:46 pm • # 8 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
And whilr the judiciary does that, the law is in effect, is it not?


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/12/09 12:52 pm • # 9 
Actually, it may not be in effect, because I think it was in the continuing appropriations bill that was passed and signed, and has an expiration date. It might have expired at the end of last month, but I'm not sure. At any rate, that's the way the judicial system works - It's not a certainty that the clause would be found to be unconstitutional.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/12/09 12:58 pm • # 10 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
It seems that the US Congress and presidents have a nasty habit of passing poorly formulated laws.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/12/09 1:06 pm • # 11 
Legislators differ on the constitutionality of legislative clauses on occasion. It's up to the judicial branch to decide that question when there's a dispute. It happens sometimes. Those questions can be very complex and there typically are arguments on both sides of the question.

It's hardly a common problem.

By the way, the ban was in the continuing appropriations resolution, which expired on October 31.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/12/09 1:10 pm • # 12 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
It's all the crap, frequently UNrelated, that gets attached to bills ~ gop, do you know how that ever started? ~ and why the practice is continued/tolerated?

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/12/09 1:29 pm • # 13 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Well, in Canada when there is a seemingly unresolvable legal question or there is a constitutional ambiguity it is frequently referred to the Supreme Court before the law is passed. The last instance I remember was that of same-sex marriage.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/12/09 2:07 pm • # 14 
The US Supreme Court only resolves cases of law, not of potential law. In order for someone to bring a case to the Supreme Court, they have to have legal standing, and that can only be established when there is an actual law in question. There's no jurisdiction for the courts until there is law to be applied, and proposed legislation doesn't achieve that. It's part of that separation of powers thing....

sooz, I can't really remember when legislation in Congress began to become more and more diverse in subject matter - There are rules about germaneness, but they are fairly easily met. It's one of the reasons the budget reconciliation process can be subject to use for tangential issues.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/12/09 11:20 pm • # 15 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
The US Supreme Court only resolves cases of law, not of potential law. In order for someone to bring a case to the Supreme Court, they have to have legal standing, and that can only be established when there is an actual law in question. There's no jurisdiction for the courts until there is law to be applied, and proposed legislation doesn't achieve that. It's part of that separation of powers thing....


Well, I'd much rather our government be ahead of the curve than behind it, thanks.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/13/09 3:03 am • # 16 
Congress has an entire body of attorneys who draft the language of the legislation and provide opinions on questions of constitutionality when they are brought up Things like this come up when there is dispute among attorneys about whether something is constitutional or not, and members of Congress go with the viewpoint they believe is correct in such matters. Sending everything over which there is a potential question of constitutionality to the Supreme Court before it's put into law would cripple the Supreme Court's ability to deal with actual legal questions and would scuttle the separation of powers principles.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/13/09 3:40 am • # 17 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Gee, then I wonder why it works here, eh?
Oh, and I would argue that our Supreme Court is far less politicized than the SCOTUS.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/13/09 4:54 am • # 18 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
oskar, are the Canadian Supreme Court justices elected or appointed? ~ and are the justices elected/appointed for life?

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/13/09 5:46 am • # 19 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
They are appointed. I think they retire at age 75 but I'm not certain about that one. I'll get back to you on the process.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 19 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.