ACORN has filed suit challenging Congress’s decision to defund the organization. The Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing ACORN, alleges the defunding decision is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. The Washington Post and New York Times cover the suit. Related VC posts are here.
-
Contact
-
Search
Stuff From Us
Categories
Archives
Blogroll
- 3 Jews, 4 Opinions
- Agoraphilia
- Althouse
- Andrew Sullivan
- Bainbridge
- Balkinization
- Becker-Posner
- Best of the Web
- Betsy's Page
- Blue Mass. Group
- C-K Faculty Blog
- Cal. App. Report
- Cal. Punitives
- CalPundit
- Cathy Young
- Chequer-Board
- Chicago Faculty Blog
- Concurring Opinions
- Conglomerate
- Copyrights & Campaigns
- CrimLaw
- Dan Drezner
- Dave Kopel
- David Frum
- Day by Day
- Deep Glamour
- Discourse.Net
- ecitsuJ
- Election Law
- Emmanuelle Richard
- Empirical Legal Studies
- Eric Muller
- Fed Soc Debates
- Former Chef
- Gavel to Gavel
- GeekPress
- Gideon's Trumpet
- Gil Milbauer
- Hit & Run
- How Appealing
- InstaPundit
- Joanne Jacobs
- Jotwell
- KausFiles
- Knowledge Problem
- Language Log
- LawCulture
- Lawrence Solum
- Legal Planet
- Liberty & Power
- Lileks
- Marginal Revolution
- Marquette Faculty Blog
- Matt Welch
- Matt Yglesias
- Michael Barone
- Michael Dorf
- Neuroethics & Law Blog
- NoodleFood
- Opinio Juris
- OpinionJournal Federation
- Overlawyered
- OxBlog
- Point of Law
- PrawfsBlawg
- Reality-Based Community
- Reason
- Religion Clause
- Right Coast
- Room for Debate
- Rosenbergs
- ScrappleFace
- Secular Right
- Sentencing Law & Policy
- Sonia Arrison
- Stuart Buck
- Technology Liberation Front
- The Opening Brief
- The Torch
- Tom Palmer
- Truth on the Market
- U Chicago Law Faculty Blog
- Virginia Postrel
- Wonkette
- WSJ Law Blog
Meta
-
Soronel Haetir says:
I have a hard time believing that groups have a right to ongoing federal funding. This isn’t even the case of Congress mucking with the tax code in order to abrogate contracts that suddenly turned into a political hot potato.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:28 pmJ. Aldridge says:
Should get tossed because of lack of any congressional bill passed by Congress declaring ACORN convicted of a crime.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:32 pmArthurKirkland says:
If defunding ACORN were to be accompanied by a permanent ban on federal funding of any contract involving Blackwater, KBR or any entity in which any Blackwater or KBR alumnus occupies a substantial position, that would be a package deal I would accept because of its value to America.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:36 pmDangerMouse says:
Are they asking for a certain amount? Would they sue if they were given one penny every year?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:43 pmJohn Moore says:
ArthurKirkland says:
Yeah, Blackwater employees only defend America at the risk of their lives, so they should certainly be shut down. KBR has huge amounts of expertise in engineering — especially oil — so they’re clearly villains also.
Why do I suspect that you reflexively detest anyone that Bush or Cheney could possibly like or employ?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:54 pmMatthewM says:
This is pathetic. ACORN’s hubris and arrogance is bordering on criminal. Perhaps a RICO investigation is in order?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 8:58 pmSteve says:
This is probably a pretty good claim. ACORN may have no entitlement to funding from any particular government agency, but that doesn’t mean Congress can single them out for defunding. If the relevant agencies decided they didn’t want to do business with ACORN any more in light of developments, just like they might cut any other entity out of the contracting process for misconduct, there would of course be nothing wrong with that.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:02 pmSteve says:
KBR has huge amounts of expertise in engineering — especially oil — so they’re clearly villains also.
Yeah, too bad they can’t build a fucking shower that won’t electrocute people though.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:03 pmRPT says:
John:
The ACORN controversy is completely manufactured. Let’s get real here.
I thought you supported the troops. Many real soldiers died or been sickened as a result of KBR’s “expertise” in construction, water supply management, waste disposal, plumbing and electrical wiring, among other things. Criminal negligence is nonpartisan. Competence and respect for honest work is nonpartisan. When do you think the Baghdad embassy will get a certificate of occupancy?
Blackwater is something else, bribes not withstanding. Corruption is nonpartisan. There may very well be many competent employees, but too many trigger happy characters who risk everyone around them, and the leadership is corrupt to the core. Are they now blackmailing the government to keep their contracts? Take the money away from the too highly paid mercenaries and give it to the real soldiers. And send Tom Coburn (Mr. “billions for hardware but not $.10 for the VA”) over there while you’re at it.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:08 pmMark N. says:
Singling out a specific entity for having funding removed, instead of changing the rules in some more neutral way, does seem problematic. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I think a bill that specifically prohibited, say, Eugene Volokh from receiving government research grants, would be unconstitutional, even though Prof. Volokh doesn’t have any Constitutional right to the money per se.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:12 pmDIff says:
J. Aldridge, I propose we enact legislation sending you to prison for 15 years. It won’t convict you of a crime, so not a bill of attainder.
MatthewM, there’s nothing inconsistent with saying a criminal RICO investigation should be launched but the current statute violates the bill of attainder clause. Statutory punishments like this do not involve jury trials (or have any evidentiary standard whatsoever). How is it hubris to say that allegations should be investigated and proven before a sweeping congressional ban, that would essentially kill the organization (because of the prohibition of ‘indirect’ funding), can go into effect? Would you find it hubris for a corporation to protest a statute dismantling it because of unproven allegations, without a trial of any kind, without a right to put on a defense?
Even though this provision involves funding, imagine if it were licensing. Could Congress pass a statute saying “Corporation X may no longer be, directly or indirectly, be granted regulatory approval for any product”? The whole point of the prohibition on bills of attainder is that Congress cannot punish someone because of accusations of wrongdoing. So even if you hate ACORN, this provision should at least give you pause on slippery slope grounds.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:14 pmSarcastro says:
I would also like to investigate ACORN under the RICO anti-Hubris law.
Moreover, ACORN is unconstitutionally arrogant. It also does things I disagree with, so the Constitution says it shouldn’t receive any government money.
George Soros is also Unconstitutional.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:15 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Whatever your opinion of ACORN, this seems like a perversion of the concept of the prohibition of a Bill of Attainder. Although suspicion of criminal activity may have played a part in the political motivation for defunding, that should not be determinative as to whether a decision to defund is constitutional. I would hope that Congress would only fund (if they are going to fund at all — maybe this is the real problem...) upright organizations. Although special legislation is not prohibited by the federal constitution (that I know of), ACORN was selected to receive funds, so why not allow the converse selection for defunding? Again, they have no right to our money, after all — correct?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:23 pmoren says:
They also grossly overcharge the taxpayer for those services, so they’re clearly neither heroes nor villains but just regular humans like the rest of us.
The world is not a moral caricature.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:27 pmoren says:
Correct. It would be separately unconstitutional to deprive him of liberty without due process.
A corporation has a positive right to equal protection under the law, which includes consideration of their regulatory submissions on equal grounds with that of any other corporation.
Corporations do not have a positive right to equal funding consideration in Congressional earmarks. That is, equal protection of the law does not extend to equal largess of our wonderfully generous Congress.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:31 pmJ. Aldridge says:
At least you are not withdrawing any funding to me!! :-)
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:37 pmreadery says:
I don’t think Congress choosing to award a particular contract or all contracts for the year rather than an executive agency represents a bill of attainder.
But permanently barring from funding eligibility seems more in the nature of punishment than simply not awarding a contract or canceling an existing contract.
I don’t think Congress has to formally declare an entity guilty of a crime to be a bill of attainder — its action simply has to be punishment. I think the constitution addresses substance, not form. There don’t have to be certain magic words, it has to be punishment functionally.
Defunding is simply business. Permanently barring strikes me as likely punitive.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:44 pmSteve says:
Corporations do not have a positive right to equal funding consideration in Congressional earmarks.
Since when is ACORN funded by Congressional earmark? Of course if it were simply an earmark, Congress would have the right to refrain from giving them any more earmarks. But this is legislation prohibiting Executive agencies from appropriating any funds to them pursuant to the ordinary contracting process.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:49 pmbyomtov says:
Blackwater employees only defend America at the risk of their lives,
“Thin red line of heroes..”
Right. Overpaid thugs is more like it. I guess murder and bribery are just fine when done by politically connected companies. Even the worst possible interpretation of ACORN’s activities pales next to Blackwater.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:49 pmRuss says:
Has anyone here who is slamming Blackwater or KBR ever actually dealt with them, or are you basing your opinions on what you’ve gotten from clearly slanted news reports.
Caricatures go both ways.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:56 pmSoronel Haetir says:
On the subject of permanence, when speaking of legislation such a term is silly. It is permanent until Congress changes its mind. Legislatures can only bind future legislatures to the point of respect for the orderly execution of laws.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 9:59 pmArthurKirkland says:
An American officer and member of a friend’s family was electrocuted while showering at a military installation near Baghdad, and I am familiar with some of the issues revealed by litigation. I will be charitable and assume that the comment concerning KBR is based on ignorance. KBR’s conduct in the wake of a rape of an employee in Iraq corroborates my view that KBR disgraces the United States (at cost plus).
I do not have similarly close exposure to Blackwater, but the available information concerning smuggling, overcharging, bribery, abuse of civilians and other issues persuades me that our nation can and should do better than Blackwater.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:02 pmSuperSkeptic says:
I didn’t realize it was a “permanent bar.” But, can there really ever be such a thing? If a future Congress was so inclined to re-fund the organization, could they not revoke the permanent bar also (either expressly pre-re-funding or implicitly by actually re-funding)?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:02 pmLeo Marvin says:
ACORN does have an hubris problem, or maybe it’s just a reckless stupidity problem. True, nobody ever produced evidence ACORN had actually corrupted any elections, but the Right’s mafia-like vendetta persistence did pay off with that prostitution sting video. So whether or not there was validity to 99% of what ACORN was accused of, it’s credibility is trashed. Anyone still there with an intact reputation should be thinking about how to build a nitwit-free vehicle for their worthwhile work, not wasting any more political capital on this pointless crusade.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:09 pmbyomtov says:
Has anyone here who is slamming Blackwater or KBR ever actually dealt with them, or are you basing your opinions on what you’ve gotten from clearly slanted news reports.
Have you dealt with them? Are you familiar with the details of the accusations? If not, how do you know the news reports are “clearly slanted?” and maybe you could explain how the bribery is really no big deal, and it’s “slanted” to report on it.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:34 pmACORN complains – our rights are being violated | Radio Vice Online says:
[...] writing include Volokh Conspiracy, Sweetness and Light, and the Washington [...]
Bruce Hayden says:
Seems a bit extreme, if for no other reason than Equal Protection is found in the 14th Amdt., which is applicable here to the states, and not the federal government.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:36 pmMark Field says:
Has anyone actually researched the law regarding Bills of Attainder? The comments here seem heavy on opinion and thin on substance.
I’ll throw some coals on the fire and link to this.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:38 pmreadery says:
Well, the distinction I’m suggesting is that simply rescinding a contract can’t be a bill of attainder. It’s not normally thought of as punishment — people do it all the time when they think the other side isn’t performing, and the executive routinely. You don’t perform, you don’t get the business. It’s not a judical matter, there’s nothing implying punishment about it. Having Congress rather than the executive handle canceling specific contracts may have other constitutional issues, but the bill of attainder clause isn’t one of them.
On the other hand, barring from consideration for future contracts isn’t routine business. It doesn’t matter that it’s not actually permanent and a future Congress can always undo it. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether it’s in the nature of a punitive activity rather than an ordinary business-management activity.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:38 pmMark Field says:
EP applies to the federal government under Bolling v. Sharpe.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:39 pmBruce Hayden says:
In other words, you are arguing that since no ACORN person has been convicted of voter fraud (though numerous states have made fairly strong cases for voter registration fraud), that they are clean? And, you seem very quick to explain away all those videos. Are you suggesting that what appears to have happened on the videos didn’t? Or that what appeared to have happened on the videos was not criminal? Or, do you just dislike the fact that they got caught?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:43 pmCornellian says:
I have a hard time believing that groups have a right to ongoing federal funding.
No group is entitled to federal funding but there are any number of reasons why it would be unlawful for the federal government to deprive a group of funding. The feds could not, for example, enact legislation saying “all groups of type X get funding except type X groups that criticize any elected member of Congress” or “type X groups that include Black or Jewish members.”
Quote
November 12, 2009, 10:55 pmDIff says:
I’m pretty sure it would also violate the prohibition on bills of attainder under current case law.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:00 pmBruce Hayden says:
Only to a limited extent. There are still a lot of things that the federal government can do that the states cannot due to EP. Heck, start with the draft. Prohibition of women in “combat” roles (probably easier to justify that the single sex draft). Social security traditionally had different standards for males and females spouses. Much of the tax laws. Many earmarks. My point here is that the federal government has a lot more freedom to treat one group differently than another than do the states. They do it so routinely that we don’t even think about it.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:03 pmLarryA says:
Bill of attainder or asset forfeiture? Do we really expect Congress to pay attention to the Constitution any more?
I don’t remember Michael Corleone ever videotaping an enemy and posting it online. Seems like he used more direct methods.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:05 pmBruce Hayden says:
Another problem with a bill of attainder here is that ACORN is not being imprisoned and is not being fined. There is nothing criminal here, and that is what Bills of Attainder traditionally involved. Rather, Congress has just cut them off from federal funding. This is the power of the purse, and not a police power.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:06 pmCornellian says:
Another problem with a bill of attainder here is that ACORN is not being imprisoned and is not being fined. There is nothing criminal here, and that is what Bills of Attainder traditionally involved.
Nothing in the text of the Constitution restricts the scope of the Attainder clause from applying to whatever new and inventive ways Congress can think up to penalize people.
Do you see any constitutional problem with a law prohibiting Bruce Hayden from ever being eligible for the mortgage interest deduction, or would that be OK because there was no income tax at the time the Constitution was adopted?
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:10 pmBrian Garst says:
Congress doesn’t need to determine guilt to remove funding. It’s perfectly valid reasoning to defund them on the mere appearance of corruption (the appearance of corruption, I remind, is sufficient to overcome even the holiest of rights — free speech — with regard to campaign finance laws). No finding of guilt is necessary, therefore the act of defunding cannot itself be used to conclude that they were so found. The public has a right to ensure that public money is not sent to organizations that they do not trust.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:19 pmMark Field says:
I’m not aware of such exceptions, but in any case this is quite different from your original statement that EP did not apply to the feds.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:33 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Mark Field, the article you linked discusses two U.S. Supreme Court cases that seem to (I did not read them yet) deal solely with federal government employment removal or bans as a Bill of Attainder. This is factually distinguishable from selective contract largess, although the article speaks as if the ACORN preclusion is squarely on point.
For example:
(emphasis mine)
Besides the conclusory nature of it, there is also the fudge of “working with” to make employment=being-selected-for-largess. The article uses the phrase “discretionary benefits” repeatedly to make it seem like hiring/firing and ACORN’s situation are equivalent, but I’m not so sure that employment is the same situation. I could see the court latching on to a distinction like that — employment being important and all that. Lovett & Paul v. Davis may apply, but I submit it would be an extension of precedent because they do not appear to be on point “period” as the article suggests. Although, I would admit that if the Court reads them broadly it appears like punishment.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:33 pmloki13 says:
Two words– intermediate scrutiny.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:35 pmTGGP says:
Tim Worstall says that’s not the English common law definition of attainder:
http://image.examiner.com/x-14795-Page-One-Examiner~y2009m11d12-Acorn-claims-that-funding-withdrawal-was-unconstitutional
I approve of kicking ACORN, Blackwater and the rest off the government teat. And if Blackwater was actually “defending America” they wouldn’t be all the way over in Iraq while pols tell us the southern border can’t be controlled.
Quote
November 12, 2009, 11:54 pmLeo Marvin says:
No, I’m distinguishing between fraudulent registrations and election fraud, a critical distinction that’s typically glossed over, if not obliterated by talk radio’s anti-ACORN ravings.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:03 amOren says:
Ah, the magic of reverse incorporation. Sure to give Alridge twice the heart attack! See, e.g:
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:03 amJ. Aldridge says:
No person shall be deprived of due process under the Fifth is the equal protection of the laws for the federal govt.. Bingham said they were both identical under the 5th and 14th.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:12 amLeo Marvin says:
Unfortunately we’ll never know what the Corleones could have done with Youtube. Regardless, it was the persistence of the anti-ACORN attacks I found mafia vendetta-like, not the methods.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:18 amRelic says:
Leo
The reason it’s glossed over is because one made detecting the other impossible. The extensive voter registration fraud takes time for election officials to sort through. This prevents an accurate account of who can and cannot vote. The lack of an accurate database of voters prevents those who vote twice from being detected. If you don’t know who can vote, it’s impossible to tell who voted twice. So while it’s fair to say that ACORN is not responsible for voter fraud, it’s also fair to say that they enabled it.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:37 amzuch says:
... which is why they’re electrocuted a number of our soldiers.
Blackwater uses a more low-tech approach. They just spray civilians with automatic weapons fire.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:48 amzuch says:
No one had this intrinsic right. But when they’re excluded by name from contracts available to others similarly placed, we have a bit of a different story.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:49 amzuch says:
If hubris and arrogance were criminal, the entire Dubya maladministration would be in jail.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:51 amzuch says:
I’m sceptical. Do you have a cite for this ‘fact’?
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:55 amzuch says:
oren:
Correct. It would be separately unconstitutional to deprive him of liberty without due process.
Would that be procedural due process? One might argue that such was fulfilled. Or substantive due process?
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:07 amzuch says:
But ... but ... but ... I thought it was established by the RWers here that legal advice, even if suggesting clearly illegal and heinous behaviour such as torture resulting in dozens of deaths, is immune from sanctions or censure....
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:12 amzuch says:
What happened on the videos is that some jackasses claimed to be criminals. But that wasn’t the ACORN folks. A few ACORN employees tried to help them (perhaps in a rather incompetent manner), but are you suggesting that such is illegal? If so, you might start rounding up a good half of all tax preparers....
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:18 amJ. Aldridge says:
You mean “judicial usurpation”?
Makes you wonder if anyone knows that “liberty” under due process stood for before a whacky court invented a new function for it.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:20 amzuch says:
Nor do they need to determine guilt to imprison someone through legislation ... oh, waiddaminnit....
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:21 amzuch says:
Nonsense. You have all the time in the world. What you may be prevented from doing is invalidating the illegal second ballots before they’re counted. But there’s no evidentiary problem in knowing who voted (and as the case may be, twice); that’s all recorded.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:27 amDIff says:
One could argue that, but under current case law, they would lose. Even if it were an issue of a license, there would be some form of Matthews balancing. If Congress passed a statute revoking an individual doctor’s license to dispense narcotics, for example, without giving him the opportunity to present his case to a neutral arbiter at a hearing, that would likely fail.
I think its hard to imagine a procedural due process claim where Congress targets a specific individual or entity that wouldnt also raise a bill of attainder clause issue.
I don’t think that “well Congress passed it” is sufficient to establish due process has been met.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:12 amAnon21 says:
What people seem to miss again and again in discussing this issue is that there was not an “ACORN earmark” that the challenged amendment then deleted. That would be entirely uncontroversial. What the amendment did was to exclude ACORN from directly or indirectly receiving any federal government funding, including in open grant application procedures in accordance with prevailing law (both federal and state). Whether or not that is a bill of attainder I don’t pretend to know, but it is significantly different than people seem to be assuming, and completely negates this “Well, ACORN doesn’t have any right to federal funding anyway” talking point.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:48 amJack Marshall says:
The anti-ACORN bill may well be unconstitutional. But any non-profit that covers up a 1–5 million dollar embezzlement by its CFO and defends the cover-up is per se untrustworthy,corrupt, and unworthy of government support. And a news organization that tried to focus attention on the corrupt nature of such an organization is not “mafia-like” but responsible, no matter how much one dislike’s its political tilt. What is the word for news organizations that ignore such obvious and outrageous corrupt leadership from a non-profit just because it has politically correct aspirations and presidential favor? How about “inept”? How about “biased”? Or “lazy”? And the word for someone who attacks the one network that worked to inform the public about this atrociously-operated group?
Civility dictates that I let others answer.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:30 amDavid Nieporent says:
Uh, you guys bashing Blackwater employees realize that these are exactly the same people as the troops you rhetorically support, right? Who do you think works for Blackwater? Retired soldiers.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 6:43 amDavid Nieporent says:
Whatever one feels about criminalizing legal advice, legal advice about how not to commit a crime is obviously different than legal advice about how to commit a crime and get away with it.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:01 amJoe says:
There are still a lot of things that the federal government can do that the states cannot due to EP. Heck, start with the draft.
The state also has the power to draft people into combat type roles — they have power over their own militia, including to do things like guard against domestic insurrections and such. Not sure where is says when it does this, it has to equally provide women with combat positions, if one was required.
[Many states used their militia to combat Brits during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, e.g.]
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:19 amJoe says:
One of the articles notes the OMB enforced a freeze on funding, but one problem that I see is that the defunding was not passed by both houses yet.
I’m unsure how much effect a resolution as such — after all, we are talking about a “bill” of attainder, which seems to me a legislative act by both houses, not simply a resolution.
Overall, however, I think a “trial by legislature” can be deemed to have been shown here. ACORN was singled out by the House and in effect deemed guilty without a trial. A Congressional Research Service report also suggests problems. VC cited it; EV himself was agnostic on the bottom line. A commendable stance.
I’d also recommend, if one can find it, John Hart Ely Jr.‘s discussion of the Bill of Attainder; see, e.g., his collection — On Constitutional Ground.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:33 amrpt says:
We know that. Unfortunately, as a mercenary group Blackwater operates under different rules from the military. It’s not so much the people on the ground as the people at the top and lack of discipline and accountability. What’s wrong with enforcing standards of conduct and ethical practice? No wholesale shootings, no bribery, no profiteering.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:01 amPeteP says:
“This is probably a pretty good claim.”
No, it’s nonsense.
“ACORN may have no entitlement to funding from any particular government agency,”
Not ‘may have non right’, but “HAS no right”. There’s no ‘may’ about it.
“but that doesn’t mean Congress can single them out for defunding.”
Of course they can. Seeing as Acorn has no right to that funding, by definition withholding it does not deprive them of any RIGHT.
“If the relevant agencies decided they didn’t want to do business with ACORN any more in light of developments, just like they might cut any other entity out of the contracting process for misconduct, there would of course be nothing wrong with that.”
Typical liberal peverted view of our system. When liberals can’t get legislation they want passed, they claim that judges can write it from the bench. Now, when legislation is passed they dont’ like, they claim that COngress has no right to pass laws, and instead that authority rests with civil servants.
“If defunding ACORN were to be accompanied by a permanent ban on federal funding of any contract involving Blackwater,...:”
Typical nonsensical left wing crap from AK.
The simple plain fact is, Acorn ( like any NGO or non-profit etc ), has no ‘right’ to be funded by taxpayer dollars. Period.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:14 amjpe says:
Given that it was recently revealed by the NYTimes that they’ve been bribing Iraqi officials and that I’d think they’d have to certify somewhere that they don’t bribe, then by rights Blackwater should be defunded.
ACORN seems to have a reasonable case based on the shoddy and wrongly-decided expansion of the attainder clause case re: communist employees.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:16 amjpe says:
@ PeteP: there doesn’t have to be a right to funding for the action to constitute punishment. Consider DUIs: there’s no constitutional right to a drivers license, yet a common punishment is taking that license away.
So the non-existence of a right to funding has is little or nothing to do w/ the attainder clause inquiry.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:19 amArthurKirkland says:
Did I miss the trial that determined which side of that divide John Yoo’s conduct inhabited?
I would have guessed that the ability to distinguish mercenaries reporting to low-grade profiteers from the United States military was universal. It appears I was wrong.
And for those of you bashing Nidal Hasan — that’s MAJOR Nidal Hasan to you, and need I remind you he is a member of the United States Army you rhetorically support?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:22 amBlue Neponset says:
A US organization doesn’t have a right to bid on a gov’t contract?
I hope for your sake you don’t actually believe that.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:35 ambyomtov says:
Blackwater employees realize that these are exactly the same people as the troops you rhetorically support, right?
No. They are a non-random subset of former soldiers. They do not operate under the same rules of discipline or other constraints under which military personnel operate, and it shows. And the company apparently doesn’t even consider itself bound by law.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:40 amgasman says:
So, you’re saying they can’t defund the professor (acorn) by writing explicitly ‘no money for you’, but it’s fine to not fund the professor (acorn). Being as the result is exactly the same, no money, and that the constitutional authority for allocating money rests completely with the congress is there really any difference.
ACORN has no right to any damn federal funding, so their move is just a way to keep this matter alive and in debate long enough to dig up some dirt or effect some horse trading on individual congressmen until they can get themselves back on the gravy train.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:45 amzuch says:
I don’t think due process is very relevant to the ACORN situation but: If Congress passes a law and the president signs it, I think that (absent unusual circumstances) procedural due process is met. They did it “according to Hoyle”; there’s really no deficiency in the process.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:56 amzuch says:
They didn’t do a good job of covering it up then, if you know about it. And then there’s all the other non-profits (and profits) who successfully cover up embezzlements that you don’t know about. Didn’t you know that this is just part and parcel of the typical 25–85% overhead?
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 10:02 amMark Field says:
Superskeptic, I agree that the case law is distinguishable. But since the discussion here was content free, I thought we should at least introduce some.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 10:06 amzuch says:
According to Nieporent then, mercenaries and soldiers are one and the same. Every soldier is a[n incipient] mercenary. You tell ‘em, David, Do it in person; it will convey your earnestness.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 10:06 amzuch says:
Wow. You swung at a pitch-out there. You miss the rather obvious point here that when a lawyer tells someone that something is legal, the person acting on that legal advice is “not [...] commit[ing] a crime” regardless of the seemingly or obviously criminal nature of the actions, and the lawyer is also not subject to prosecution because they were only “giving advice”.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 10:12 amjpe says:
Zuch, your comment is wrong on all counts.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 10:39 amPubliusFL says:
“Magic” is right. Probably a better word for reverse incorporation than “law.” Hey presto chango!
Quote
November 13, 2009, 11:08 amzuch says:
Care to elucidate?
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 11:10 amSonicfrog says:
So far in this thread, I haven’t learned a damned thing about the rules governing a “Bill of Attainder”. I have learned that if you try to discuss any kind of issue involving government funding, then invariably the Bush administration’s paramilitary pet Blackwater MUST be shown to be evil criminals. Fine, I’m not opposed to that discussion. But, if that’s the case, then why doesn’t the current left leaning administration and congress pull their funding too? What’s the matter Colonel Sanders... chicken?
I do agree whole heartedly with this post. This applies to both right wing and left wing media.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 11:11 amzuch says:
How dare you. Oh, the humanity.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 11:34 amDavid Nieporent says:
I “miss” that “obvious point” because it’s not true. Where on earth did you get the idea that if a lawyer tells someone that something is legal, the person is not committing a crime regardless of the obvious criminal nature of the actions?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 11:36 amj says:
the republican defense of yoo comes to mind.
yoo: torture is legal.
CIA guy: but i thought it was illegal.
yoo: trust me, i’m a lawyer.
CIA guy commits torture and gets caught
republicans: you can’t punish the CIA guy, yoo told him it was legal. and you can’t punish yoo because he has immunity
Quote
November 13, 2009, 11:55 amzuch says:
Oh, really? My bad; I’ve been hanging around in bad company and picking up crazy ideas, I suppose. ;-)
Seeing as you’re so much better informed than I, could you do me a favour: I’d really like to go watch some of the torture prosecutions; do you know where they’re being conducted, and do I need special clearance to get in?
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 11:59 amHans Bader says:
ACORN’s lawsuit is meritless, but in the short run, it may conceivably succeed, since it filed its lawsuit in the most favorable possible venue — New York, where the archliberal Congressman Nadler, an ACORN ally, earlier made its same constitutional argument.
ACORN’s purported concern for the constitution and civil liberties is bogus. Earlier, it sued those who exposed its role in a child prostitution scandal for $2 million, claiming that the exposure violated its privacy rights under state audiotaping laws. Included among the defendants was Breitbart, which clearly was protected by Supreme Court First Amendment rulings from any liability, civil or criminal. (See Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001). See also Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, 492 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2007)).
ACORN is a left-wing group that launched Obama’s career as a community organizer. He has long-standing ties to ACORN, and an ACORN affiliate received received $800,000 from Obama’s campaign. Earlier, a liberal prosecutor (and fervent Obama supporter) threatened to punish the whistleblowers, while turning a blind eye to ACORN’s wrongdoing. Now, however, Obama is quite rationally distancing himself from ACORN, which has become an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. The financial regulation proposals he and Congressional Democrats back, however, could indirectly enrich ACORN’s affiliates.
Legal scholars like Hans Von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation have explained why Congress’s cut-off of funds to ACORN was perfectly constitutional. It is easy to see why Congress would not want scarce federal funds to go to ACORN, which has a history of terrible financial mismanagement, waste of funds, and long history of financial fraud, voter fraud, embezzlement by employees, and tax evasion. Congress had many legitimate, non-punitive reasons for cutting off funds to ACORN.
ACORN’s lawsuit is brought by the radically left-wing Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). CCR’s founder, William Kunstler, was very open about the fact that he believed in civil liberties only for left-wingers in capitalist societies, not for dissidents of any stripe in Communist countries. A classic example was his attitude towards dissidents in South Vietnam. Many of these dissidents were liberals who had once criticized the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese government. After communist North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam, the dissidents began politely criticizing the human-rights abuses of the new government. They were promptly sent to re-education camps, where they were starved or tortured to death. The new Communist government turned out to be far crueler than the old right-wing government, which had at least allowed dissidents to live.
When some liberals, like Joan Baez, criticized this oppression against dissidents they had once worked with, William Kunstler refused to do so, saying that once a communist regime took power, he was not in favor of criticizing it for any human-rights abuses it committed. Kunstler said, “I don’t believe in criticizing socialist governments publicly, even if there are human-rights violations.” To Kunstler, civil liberties were just a tool to be used to bring down capitalist governments and pave the way for a communist “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Once such a dictatorship was in power, there was no more need for civil liberties or individual freedoms of any kind, since individual freedom could only prove an obstacle to the socialist transformation of society.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:27 pmJoe says:
If Congress passes a law and the president signs it, I think that (absent unusual circumstances) procedural due process is met
Except to the degree it violates some procedural protection enumerated in the Constitution or by some other well accepted precedent. Not sure how “unusual” this is in practice these days.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:35 pmJoe says:
William Kunstler
Is this citation in honor of the new documentary out by his daughters?
His defense of flag burning alone suggests right should be glad for his efforts — the ne-er-do-wells in that litigation are no match to some of the teabag crowd today, including in their hatred of the people in power or the disreputable speech at their protests.
Legal scholars like Hans Von Spakovsky ...
Well, that settles it!
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:41 pmHans Bader says:
ACORN’s lawsuit is brought by the radically left-wing Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). CCR’s founder, William Kunstler, was very open about the fact that he did not believe in constitutional rights or civil liberties, except insofar as they could be used as a tool to bring down capitalist societies.
A case in point was his attitude towards dissidents in South Vietnam. Many of these dissidents were liberals who had once criticized the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese government. After communist North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam, the dissidents began politely criticizing the human-rights abuses of the new government. They were promptly sent to re-education camps, where they were starved or tortured to death. The new Communist government turned out to be far crueler than the old right-wing government, which had at least allowed dissidents to live.
When some liberals, like Joan Baez, criticized this oppression against dissidents they had once worked with, William Kunstler refused to do so, saying that once a communist regime took power, he was not in favor of criticizing it for any human-rights abuses it committed. Kunstler said, “I don’t believe in criticizing socialist governments publicly, even if there are human-rights violations.” To Kunstler, civil liberties were just a tool to be used to bring down capitalist governments and pave the way for a communist “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Once such a dictatorship was in power, there was no more need for civil liberties or individual freedoms of any kind, since individual freedom could only prove an obstacle to the socialist transformation of society.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 12:56 pmDoberman says:
I don’t think that your driver’s license example would neccesarily raise a bill of attainder issue. Simply stated, just because something can be a punishment does not mean that it always is a punishment. As you say, there is no constitutional right to a driver’s license; but, there may be a property right defined by statute held by everyone who complies with the said statute. This is similar to certain types of welfare.
A legislature could deprive a certain person of a driver’s license in at least two ways:
1. Pass a law declaring that person to be guilty of some crime that (such as DUI) that results in his license being taken away.
or
2. Change that law to state that a certain person may not receive a license.
Assuming that the definition of bill of attainder stated above is correct, I think that the first action would be a bill of attainder while the second action would not be. The first action fits the common law definition of a bill of attainder in that it involves a conviction of a crime. The second action does not involve a conviction of a crime or a deprivation of a right: the legislature may define these types of non-constitutional rights and has done so.
This does not mean that the legislature may do whatever. Leaving aside due process concerns, the most obvious problem with action two would be that it probably violates the Equal Protection clause. The law would essentially create a one man class.
If the Congress had declared ACORN guilty of some disqualifying condition found in the funding statute without due process, then the situation would raise a bill of attainder issue.
The situation seems to resemble the second action. It seems to be more of an equal protection issue then a bill of attainder issue. Congress has not convicted ACORN of anything and they would have defined the right to funding in such a way as to exclude ACORN from having that right. The question would then be whether there is a rational basis for the distinction. My inclination is that calling ACORN out by name may be problematic. If the stated goal is to prevent the funding of an organization that allegedly steals money and trains pimps, restricting the funding of one such organization discriminates against it vis a vi other organizations that may be doing the same thing.
Without elaborating because I am pressed for time, My gut reaction is that bills of attainder are specific things and the prohibition of same should not be extended to actions that are merely the functional equilavlent.
This discussion also makes me feel that the prohibition of bills of attainder is now a subset of equal protection in that they seek to prohibit similar kinds of actions, namely the creation of unlawful classifications. It also seems that the prohibition is somewhat irrelevant given the way due process has developed. Would a court ever hold that a “trial by legislature” satisfied due process?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:07 pmDoberman says:
I don’t think that your driver’s license example would neccesarily raise a bill of attainder issue. Simply stated, just because something can be a punishment does not mean that it always is a punishment. As you say, there is no constitutional right to a driver’s license; but, there may be a property right defined by statute held by everyone who complies with the said statute. This is similar to certain types of welfare.
A legislature could deprive a certain person of a driver’s license in at least two ways:
1. Pass a law declaring that person to be guilty of some crime that (such as DUI) that results in his license being taken away.
or
2. Change that law to state that a certain person may not receive a license.
Assuming that the definition of bill of attainder stated above is correct, I think that the first action would be a bill of attainder while the second action would not be. The first action fits the common law definition of a bill of attainder in that it involves a conviction of a crime. The second action does not involve a conviction of a crime or a deprivation of a right: the legislature may define these types of non-constitutional rights and has done so.
This does not mean that the legislature may do whatever. Leaving aside due process concerns, the most obvious problem with action two would be that it probably violates the Equal Protection clause. The law would essentially create a one man class.
If the Congress had declared ACORN guilty of some disqualifying condition found in the funding statute without due process, then the situation would raise a bill of attainder issue.
The situation seems to resemble the second action. It seems to be more of an equal protection issue then a bill of attainder issue. Congress has not convicted ACORN of anything and they would have defined the right to funding in such a way as to exclude ACORN from having that right. The question would then be whether there is a rational basis for the distinction. My inclination is that calling ACORN out by name may be problematic. If the stated goal is to prevent the funding of an organization that allegedly steals money and trains pimps, restricting the funding of one such organization discriminates against it vis a vi other organizations that may be doing the same thing.
Without elaborating because I am pressed for time, My gut reaction is that bills of attainder are specific things and the prohibition of same should not be extended to actions that are merely the functional equilavlent.
This discussion also makes me feel that the prohibition of bills of attainder is now a subset of equal protection in that they seek to prohibit similar kinds of actions, namely the creation of unlawful classifications. It also seems that the prohibition is somewhat irrelevant given the way due process has developed. Would a court ever hold that a “trial by legislature” satisfied due process?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:07 pmfwb says:
So it’s time to file suit that the ACORN funding was unconstitutional in the first place. The Constitution limits spending to the general Welfare of the political body, the United States, not groups, not individuals, not states, THE UNITED STATES. If one wishes to claim the expenditure IS general Welfare, the question must be answered, how many groups, persons, or states are required BEFORE an expenditure is general Welfare? One? one hundred? 300,000,000? The feds have been spending incorrectly for decades. the last part of paragraph 2 of Article I, Section 8 is a LIMITATION on spending NOT a separate power but then understanding that fact requires comprehension of written language.
Tiocfaidh ar la!
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:08 pmzuch says:
Hans Bader:
There was no “child prostitution”. AFAIK, the female actor/provocateur was of age, even if dressed skimpily/skankily, so Breitbart’s off the hook.
AFAIK, the violation alleged was the taping (if it had been the disclosure/publication, FauxSnooze would have been a defendant). But Bartnicki had to do with disclosure, and did nothing to provide a “First Amendment” exception to illegal wiretapping/recording laws.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:14 pmzuch says:
You need to watch a bit less of FauxSnooze.
You misspelled “Dubya maladministration flunkie and apparatchik” (or would that be “crook”?)
This is argumentum ad hominem. And even, assuming arguendo the truth of your accusations about Kuntsler [who’s dead and will not be a very effective lawyer in these proceedings], it’s not the lawyers for the parties that decide the case, it’s the judges.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:21 pmArthurKirkland says:
Hans:
(1) Do you strive to use “liberal” and “left-wing” so frequently, or does it occur naturally?
(2) Do you believe Congress has legitimate reasons to prohibit funding with respect to KBR and/or Blackwater? If not, how can ACORN be distinguished? I have not researched the issues, but it strikes me that the government can bar contract funding involving entities with bad records. I can not imagine a legitimate standard that would bar ACORN but not Blackwater and KBR.
I am trying to understand whether the opprobrium directed at ACORN is based on a legitimate standard or, instead, some other factor. I probably would oppose banishment unless it were based on a generally applicable standard.
Thank you.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:27 pmloki13 says:
You might not be aware of this, but formalistic niceties matter in ConLaw. Mark Field was pleasant enough to point out actual case law, supra, which is persuasive (although distinguishable, as superskeptic pointed out).
Your argument is similar to this:
Well, the President can suggest legislation to Congress, and Congress then writes it, and the President then signs it. So why not just have the President write the legislation for Congress to pass?
Or....
Legislative vetoes over executive agencies are fine, because Congress delegated the power originally, so why shouldn’t they maintain control over it?
Or....
Look, we all know ACORN did bad things (right?). So Congress could choose to not fund them in the future. Why not make ACORN feel the wrath of Congress by singling them out and permanently banning them from appropriations?
It’s an interesting question. Sometimes form matters greatly.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:28 pmTheBadness says:
I’ll let the CRS have a word in my place. They’re much better qualified than little old me.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:37 pmNot Zuch says:
Zuch is wrong about just about everything.
ACORN was involved in a child prostitution sting. It was caught on video counseling what it believed to be a pimp and an underage prostitute on how to set up a child brothel of immigrant prostitutes, and conceal it from authorities. (The fact that the female participant in the sting wasn’t actually underage doesn’t make ACORN’s motives any less malign).
Breitbart was sued by ACORN for publicizing this scandal — disclosing it — not for making the audiotape — so the Supreme Court ruling holding that the First Amendment bars liability for disclosure of wrongdoing, even if the audiotape is made in violation of state law, is clearly a shield against liability for Breitbart. The First Amendment clearly protects Breitbart.
As was noted in a comment above, the First Circuit has said that the First Amendment limits those audiotaping laws — specifically, Massachusetts’ wiretapping/audiotaping law. So it’s not true, as Zuch claims, that there is no “‘First Amendment’ exception to illegal wiretapping/recording laws.” True, there is no blanket First Amendment exception. But that is different than saying there is no exception at all.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:38 pmdavod says:
The Congress approves funding and removes funding all the time. Does any organization have a consitutional right to funding.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 1:51 pmShelbyC says:
I’d imagine Congressional intent plays a role here. If congress is simply trying to ensure the most effective use of federal funds, then I’d imagine they’re OK even if they exclude organizations by name. If Congress passed a bill saying, “Agencies cannot use ABC plumbing because we want to punish them” that would be a bill of attainder. A bill saying, “Agencies cannot use ABC plumbing because they suck and using them is a waste of money” would not be. If no purpose is specified, I’d imagine courts would have to detirmine what congress is doing, no?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:01 pmgeokstr says:
And you can refute the above statements with something other than calling Fox News a cutesy name you probably copy/pasted off Media Matters?
In fact, the Obama campaign called the $800,000++ in payments to ACORN “staging and lighting” until they got caught, when they red-facedly had to amend their reporting. And Obama’s ties to ACORN, both as an instructor and their lawyer, going back to the early 1990’s are quite well documented without relying on any rightwing TV network.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 2:27 pmbpbatista says:
Hey, Congress has not voted to give me hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s blatantly unconstitutional. Is there a lawyer out there who wants to take my case?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 3:00 pmJoe says:
Obama’s ties to ACORN
It is true enough that any attempt to diminish his relationship with the group is probably counterproductive.
A group that provided housing assistance et. al. when not giving tax advice to faux prostitutes that is not worthy of the (to be neutral about it) excitement raised (in fact providing various positives; its Wikipedia page provides some insights in that department, to provide a rough sense of the organization, to add some perspective), particularly vis-a-vis other governmentally funded (in some form) organizations.
Does any organization have a constitutional right to funding.
If Congress funded every group except Republicans that helped the census because Congress was run by the other party would there be no problem, since no organization has a constitutional right to funding?
Suffice to day, this misses the point.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 3:08 pmzuch says:
As I pointed out, Breitbart’s use of a supposed child model in sexually suggestive clothing does not constitute an offence, because said model was of legal age. I don’t disagree that a few counsellors, faced with an unusual and extreme situation for which they almost undoubtedly were not trained, did not do a very good job of it (but as I noted, if you want to criminalise “creative” ways of declaring income and such, you’d have to lock up a substantial fraction of commercial tax preparers). But I’d also note that some other ACORN people were smarter than Breitbart (who got suckered himself; turn-about’s fair play), and the few cases of bad advice in question is not claimed by anyone outside FauxSnooze and RW radio to be “official” ACORN policy or procedure (and AFAIK, the people involved in such have been let go by ACORN).
I thought I’d linked to this above:
Are some people hard of reading? Or just lazy? Or do they just “know” what the Truth™ is and don’t actually need to check things out?
As I said, the First Amendment doesn’t give an exception against prohibitions against wiretapping. What is protected by the First Amendment is disclosure [Jean is similarly about “disclosure”]. One of the major developments here in this line of cases was the Pentagon Papers case, of course. But as I pointed out, the ACORN complaint was not about disclosure but about the illegal taping.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 3:19 pmzuch says:
If this is so “well documented”, then can you do so (say, without citing to FauxSnooze or WhirledNutzDaily or other organs of the RW Mighty Wurlitzer)?
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 3:23 pmShelbyC says:
Is Breitbart accused of illegal taping?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 4:01 pmCommenter says:
Zuch is just wrong. Breitbart didn’t make any tape, or do any illegal taping. Breitbart just disclosed the contents of the tape, which was made by two activists.
In any event, the Supreme Court has never upheld an incredibly broad ban on taping — which is how ACORN is construing the Maryland audiotaping statute.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 5:51 pmzuch says:
OK, the actual tapers were O’Keefe and Giles. The complaint is against O’Keefe, Giles, and the website Breitbart. Item #11 of the complaint states:
I’d note that the cases where there’s been a “First Amendment” exception to distribution prohibitions have involved distributors who did not do the actual illegal taping.
“[B]road”? How so? And has it ever overturned such?
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 6:23 pmDavid Nieporent says:
...and...
...and
And this is irony.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 6:48 pmbyomtov says:
Legal scholars like Hans Von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation
According to his bio, “His articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, National Review and Human Events,”
Scholar? Why not just admit he’s a right-wing hack?
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:43 pmPeteP says:
Zuch — “You miss the rather obvious point here that when a lawyer tells someone that something is legal, the person acting on that legal advice is “not [...] commit[ing] a crime” regardless of the seemingly or obviously criminal nature of the actions”
Bwahahaha !!!!! :-)
My lawyer just told me it’s Ok for me to kill you for being so f’ing stupid. I’ll be over to see you later.
Putz.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 7:48 pmzuch says:
No. This is irony. More here. Matter of fact, you’ll get more actual news there than you ever will on FauxSnooze.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:27 pmLeo Marvin says:
PeteP,
Your irony detector was recalled.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:28 pmzuch says:
I think your Sarcas-O-Meter™ needs some fine tuning.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:30 pmgeokstr says:
On the $800,000:
Obama to amend report on $800,000 in spending: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
On both the $800,000 and Obama’s long-running close relationship with ACORN:
Acorn Who?: WSJ
On Obama’s role representing ACORN:
Strong, silent type: Chicago Sun-Times
This is just from the first of millions of hits on google for various combinations of “Obama” and “ACORN” and “campaign” and a few other key words. Maybe if you spent some time actually reading things other than Media Matters, KOS, HuffPo, DU and the other reliably leftist sources, you might know some of this stuff. But I really don’t want your head to explode from the cognitive dissonance sure to result.
You like to parrot the FauxSnooze crap that the other lefties all spout, but guess what? We don’t care what you think of them. The fact that, outside their opinion shows, they are much more relatively balanced does make them seem far to the right given the only comparison available is to the lefties on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, CNN, NYT, LAT, WaPo, and nearly every one of the slimy liberal sycophantic media we’ve had no choice but to listen to for many decades now. Relative to the slanted garbage conservatives have had to suffer through since the 1960’s, anything to the right of Bernie Sanford must seem like the John Birch Society to hard-care leftists like you and a few others here.
And this leftwing bias has also been heavily documented by annual surveys for decades of anchors, editors, reporters, journalism professors, etc, ad nauseum where they are asked to self-identify who they vote for, what party and philosophy they identify with, who they donate to, etc, etc. No trick or loaded questions, just who did you vote for, donate to, do you consider yourself conservative or liberal, etc. Results show 85–95% tilt to the left in nearly every category, far outside the mainstream.
So spare us the FauxSnooze garbage. Also, the “FauxCheers” ending is getting tiresome as well, because the only time you really mean that is when you are commenting to another lefist.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:34 pmgeokstr says:
Yes, we know. Everyone who is the least critical of The Won or leftism is a hack, a homophobe or a racist.
You guys have these Rules down so pat now that they must be internalized:
See, the thing is, we’re on to this BS now, so we’re going to call you on it every time.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 8:41 pmloki13 says:
Ha! It’s the Godwin’s law of Volokh. How many comments until geokstr cites Alinsky.
It’s amazing, really. I would bet that Alinsky is more commonly read, cited, and followed by right-wingers (conservatives?) than anyone else.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:27 pmMark Field says:
I read left/liberal blogs on a regular basis, and I can’t remember anyone citing to Alinsky. I think he’s reaching Frankfurt School levels of myth.*
*I’ve never heard a liberal younger than I am display the slightest knowledge of the Frankfurt School.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:34 pmbyomtov says:
Yes, we know. Everyone who is the least critical of The Won or leftism is a hack, a homophobe or a racist.
You don’t know a damn thing. He’s a “scholar” who can’t find anyone to publish his articles other than patently ideological outlets who care more about contributors toeing the party line than about factual accuracy or logic. He can’t be viewed as anything other than a talking points parrot.
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:35 pmzuch says:
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review? OIC. But even for a Richard Mellon-Scaife rag, FWIW, the article doesn’t say what you say it says.
WSJ? John Fund?!?!? Say no more, say no more.
Their lawyer in one case (in which other organisations signed on as well).
You folks are trying the “slime by association and innuendo” with all your might (that’s your modus operandi) ... but it really is rather thin gruel.
Cheers,
Quote
November 13, 2009, 9:38 pmpublic_defender says:
You forgot two more rules that should apply to Blackwater employees:
Quote
November 14, 2009, 12:20 pmgeokstr says:
Oh, yes, and approval of both Rape of Co-Workers and Electrocution of US Soldiers were of course standard official written company policy, passed by the Board of Directors upon direct orders from Bush/Cheney/Hitler, because it might cost a couple dollars to avoid them out of the trillions they were stealing from the treasury for doing nothing.
And here’s just more of the leftist double standard — “oh it’s OK if anybody on our side does anything, no matter how despicable, sleazy, detestable or dishonorable, because, look, if we go back far enough, we can twist something a rightwinger, or somebody working for a rightwinger, or somebody we can call a rightwinger no matter whether they are or not, did to make it appear bad for you, so we’re totally justified”. Gotta rationalize what you do somehow, I suppose, but if you haven’t got a conscience to begin with, what difference does it make, so why bother?
I will be praying feverishly to the FSM that I never am desperate enough to need your services, with the gift for strong arguments based on reason and logic that you obviously possess. I could probably count on the death sentence for spitting on the sidewalk with such a “public defender” in my corner.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 3:03 pmgeokstr says:
Hey, Mark, all you guys should know who Alinsky is. He is the hero of both Obama and Hillary, and his Machiavellian Ends-Justify-Any-Means Rules are what ACORN and the leftist machine used on the long march through the institutions. They’re what the New Left, which slowly morphed into today’s “Progressives”, followed to a “T”.
Hell, I never knew who he was until earlier last year, when it all came about about how much the O and HRC loved him, and I have lived through and followed politics since the 1960s. But rest assured, we’re learning how to use them too now, and you can anticipate being ridiculed every time you spout that leftist nonsense that conservatives have suffered from your side for decades.
No more Mr. Nice Guy. Now we’re going for the long march back through the institutions on our way to taking them back.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 3:17 pmgeokstr says:
Zuch:
Now why did I suspect that you would not accept ANY source I found for you? Why don’t you do some of your own freaking research for a change, instead of just Lewinskying Media Matters to get your “facts”? There were literally millions of hits from google and I just took the first few.
Plenty of legitimate anaylysis and investigation has been done tying your demi-god to the hard left, but guess what, it’s all had to be done by people you would call “hacks”, simply because they disagree with your far left world view. Very little digging into Obama’s background was done by all those in the sycophant media (i.e., anyone non-FauxSnooze) because they were all too busy writing puff pieces about him and carpet bombing Wasilla with reporters and lawyers to sniff through Palin’s trash cans.
No, Obama could put it in writing, admit to everything under oath, on video, and half of the leftists would deny it anyway, and the other half would blame it on Palin.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 3:35 pmMark Field says:
Oh, I know who he is well enough. I read him when Obama was in elementary school. But I think you vastly underestimate the historical background of today’s liberals/progressives/leftists. Most of them don’t have a clue who Alinsky was and have never read him.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 5:07 pmLeo Marvin says:
Somewhere no doubt quite warm, Dick Nixon just wet himself laughing.
Quote
November 14, 2009, 5:59 pmreadery says:
The EP ‘component’ of the Due Process Clause that applies to the Federal government isn’t quite the same as the Equal Protection Clause that applies to the states. Perhaps the most salient difference is treatment of aliens. State laws that regulate aliens differently from citizens are subject to strict scrutiny, but the same laws passed by Congress are subject only to rational basis.
Thus for example states must include aliens in their own welfare programs, but congress can exclude them from federal welfare programs and can require states to exclude them from joint ones.
Because it’s established that the Federal EP is less than the EP applicable to the states, the door has been opened and could potentially be widened, and so the possibility is always there to argue in any given case that the federal EP doesn’t require the federal government to do something that the state EP requires the states to do.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 12:42 amzuch says:
I specifically asked for non-RW sources. There may be millions of hits out there, but the first two that you cited were RW slime machine outlets. Funny that, eh?
Cheers,
Quote
November 15, 2009, 1:21 amzuch says:
Ummm, Palin went to “puffball” Katie Couric. What result?
Don’t blame us for reality’s fondness for liberalism.
Cheers,
Quote
November 15, 2009, 1:23 amloki13 says:
Luckily, we won’t need to... how do you put it... “use them too” on you. While ridicule might be a potent weapon, it doesn’t always need to be employed. Res ipsa.
Seriously, I’d recommend finding a new gimmick. I don’t think you need to continuously cite to Alinsky to justify not being a nice guy. You can do that perfectly well without any assistance.
Quote
November 15, 2009, 10:48 pm