A colleague asked me this, and a Google search suggests others have been asking the same question as well. Here's a short summary:
1. The Constitutions bans both the federal and state legislatures from enacting "bills of attainder."
2. This is understood as barring "a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial." ("If the punishment be less than death, the act [was historically] termed a bill of pains and penalties," but "[w]ithin the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties.") So if Congress says, "We conclude that Eugene Volokh is guilty of treason, and we order him to be executed," that would be a classic bill of attainder.
3. According to the Court, permanent exclusion of named people -- or even a class of people, such as Communist Party members or people who had given help to the Confederacy -- from government office may constitute "punishment" and be treated as an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. See U.S. v. Lovett (1946), U.S. v. Brown (1965), and Cummings v. Missouri (1866).
4. This may apply to punishment of corporations and other entities, and not just of individuals, at least according to Consolidated Edison Co. v. Pataki (2d Cir. 2002); I think that has to be right, but the issue is not clearly settled.
5. At the same time, even legislation that singles out individuals is not a Bill of Attainder if "the law under challenge, viewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed, reasonably can be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes." See Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977); SeaRiver Maritime Financial Holdings Inc. v. Mineta (9th Cir. 2002) (upholding the legislative exclusion of "any vessel that spilled more than one million gallons of oil into the marine environment after March 22, 1989" -- a class that includes only the Exxon Valdez -- from Prince William Sound, because it has the legitimate nonpunitive purpose of "reduc[ing] the environmental risk to the Sound" by excluding "a vessel with a history of substantial spillage, and encourag[ing] SeaRiver and other tank vessel owners to take greater steps to avoid a similar spill in any marine environment").
But the trouble, of course, is that most laws, including punitive ones, also further nonpunitive legislative purposes. The hypothetical Eugene Volokh Execution Act of 2009 would further nonpunitive legislative purposes of preventing future bad acts by me (as well as punishing me for all my manifold past sins). Likewise, the permanent exclusion of certain people from federal employment, struck down in Lovett and Brown, was likely aimed at preventing bad behavior by the named employees (Lovett) and Communist employees (Brown).
So would defunding ACORN be an unconstitutional bill of attainder? My rereading of the precedents leads me to confidently and unambiguously say, "I don't know." The distinction between "punishment" and actions that "reasonably can be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes" strikes me as generally elusive and perhaps even illusory, and especially so here. But I thought I'd lay out the basic questions and precedents, and see what the rest of you think.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Congressional Research Service on Whether the "Defund ACORN Act" Is an Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder:
- Would Defunding ACORN Be an Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder?
I want to see some perp walking.
Would an Exclusion of Eugene Volokh From Ever Receiving A Government Grant Act of 2009 therefore pass muster?
Sen. Johanns' other proposed amendment would have done this. I wasn't able to see whether it passed though.
Does it make a difference that only the organization, and not the individuals behind the organization, are excluded?
I think it is worth looking at the scope and bredth of the amendment. Presumably the "Libertarian Exclusion Act of 2009" which would forbid government grants to any Libertarians would be Constitutional. Similarly, I would think the "Illya Somin Grant Exclusion Act of 2009" would be certainly questionable.
However, this amendment goes well beyond this, saying that the funds shall neither be used to directly nor indirectly fund ACORN. If on the other hand, we passed a law which said "No education funds may directly or indirectly fund Eugene Volokh's career" then I think that would be clearly over the line since UCLA would arguably be ineligible for any funds as long as EV was on staff.
The breadth of this exclusion suggests to my mind it WOULD be over the line.
It's possible that Lovett and other similar cases would be limited to permanent disqualification -- which Lovett does stress -- as opposed to disqualification in one particular funding cycle. It's also possible that it would be limited to exclusion from employment and not exclusion from grants and other contracts. But both strike me as being on balance difficult distinctions to justify.
An organizational version of the analogy, though, might be: could Congress pass a bill that excluded one specific university from receiving National Science Foundation grants?
I also don't understand the issue. It is perfectly reasonable to not fund an organization (my organization, the Organization for the Advancement of Myself, membership of one, doesn't get any money). I am assuming that the issue exists because ACORN got funds, and are being 'defunded' of funds already allocated (but not actually delivered)? Or being asked to return money previously granted?
Or is there the belief that choosing not to fund an organization is conceptually (legally, constitutionally) different from specifically naming an organization to not be funded?
If so, I find it to be logically suspect (not to say legally suspect: legal arguments are not logical arguments-they're just emotive arguments dressed in logical clothing).
Sk
Depends on why. If it is because they don't do scientific research then sure. If it is because they are accused of fraud but never tried, I don't think that would work.
Well, because the Constitution doesn't prohibit the "reward" version of a bill of attainder. The Eugene Volokh Execution Act (or even Small Fine Act) is unconstitutional, but the Eugene Volokh Commendation With Large Monetary Prize Act is constitutional.
Except for all that precedent cited, sure.
There have been guilty pleas by ACORN employees relating to fraud. I seem to recall one state subsidiary pleading guilty, but I can't find any link to justify that recollection.
Ah..
So what Congress has to do is pass a 100% tax rate on all grants to all organizations, then 'reward' every organization save ACORN with an exemption...
Sk
You can pick up any appropriations bill of the last few decades (the Defense appropriations bill is always a good one), and you'll find any number of provisions tucked away in there that take the general form, "Notwithstanding any other law, none of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be used for the following purpose..." The so-called Boland Amendments famously did this regarding aid to the Nicaraguan Contras during the 1980s, but there's zillions of other examples, mostly not so high-visibility or controversial.
To suggest that a perfectly proper exercise of Congress' "power of the purse" could be a bill of attainder is to argue that anyone who receives Federal funding has an implied claim in perpetuity on the Federal purse. As anyone can plainly see, this is a nonsense.
I'm just saying what a "bills of attainder" means, not what some wacky court might had said it means once with other courts following suit.
And the idea that exclusion from government grants is some kind of punishment -- that ACORN has some kind of "right" to my tax money, in any manner even distantly approaching the right of an individual to his liberty or Professor Volt to his life -- is nauseating.
Statements about objective reality and statement interpreting the meaning of words are not of the same Kind.
Interpreting the meaning of words while rejecting their long held meaning is far from objective reality.
Tiocfaidh ar la!
The problem I see though is that if they do ban money going to ACORN (unlikely given the partisan makeup of Congress, but still hypothetically), all they would have to do is change their name, or more likely, just change the organization(s), with the same people still doing the same things to get around it.
Indeed, since interpreting the meaning of words is, in general, not related to objective reality.
How long does a meaning have to be extant before it is a "long held" meaning?
The inclusion of bills of pains and penalties within the constitution's prohibition of bills of attainder goes back to Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 323 (1867) ("A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties."); See also Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 138 (1810) ("A bill of attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both.").
Does 200 years count as long-held?
So events that lead to the choice of words should be discarded for the subjective fantasies of men?
This argument might overlook some nuance having to do with appropriations vs. authorizations. But notwithstanding that it seems pretty valid. I'm with splunge and Mr. Hecht on this.
Imagine if Congress passes a defense appropriations bill that includes the language: "No funds appropriated by this bill may be disbursed to Boeing." Personally, it seems dubious to me that such language would amount to "punishing Boeing without a trial," given that Boeing hardly has a right to a trial before a contract is awarded to one of its competitors. But regardless, this just doesn't strike me as something that Congress does all the time, or very often at all.
Except you won't find me confusing a bill of attainder with a "bill of pains and penalties." The reason for the bill of attainder is because Congress has the power to declare the punishment of Treason.
Cheers,
To be sure, that wouldn't tell us what bill of attainder means under modern American law. In a case such as this one, the actual meaning under modern law is probably more significant than the original meaning.
But even if you're arguing about the original meaning, do you suppose that you might actually produce evidence for your arguments -- and rebuttal to the counterarguments -- rather than just giving us one-liners that implicitly ask us to accept things simply on your august say-so?
Well, that's a good example. I think the corporate entity known as Blackwater has, in fact, been cut off by the State Department. The difference is that this was done through the State Department's standard contracting process, as opposed to Congress passing a law that says Blackwater has done all these controversial things, so the Executive Branch may no longer give them any money. I think such a bill would be analyzed under the exact same framework that we're discussing for ACORN.
The Constitution permits Congress to enact a statute punishing treason, and to set the punishment therefor, subject to certain limits. See 18 U.S.C. § 2381. That is entirely separate from the prohibition on bills of attainder. You have yet to respond to why your devotion to the pre-1810 use of "Bill of Attainder" should be privileged over that 200 year old meaning in American law.
On this view, arguing that the proposed law or amendment would constitute a forbidden bill of attainder would not, ipso facto, endorse the proposition that any group is entitled to federal funds having once received them. Rather, it would merely reaffirm that Congress is not empowered to impose special penalties on the basis of the identity of a named individual or group.
No more than they do in passing parking laws for the street you live on or regulating how strictly you can ground your daughter.
Cheers,
Do you consider such laws to be bills of pains and penalties?
The Ex Post Facto clauses has been limited to criminal laws. I believe the Bill of Attainder clauses have been read more broadly.
(The force of the prohibition was, I understand, undermined a few years back, when a government agency wanted to award a contract to a company that was a lineal descendant of the Pinkerton Detective Agency referred to in the statute, and the agency asked the Comptroller General if it would be legal to do so. The CG issued an opinion saying that what Congress really wanted to outlaw was contracting with the Pinkerton Detective Agency that used to shoot strikebreakers back in the 19th century, and that since the Pinkertons had totally cleaned up their act and were no longer that kind of bad actor, it was OK to contract with them.)
I consider that usurpation. Also, the constitution speaks only of a "bill (singular) of attainder" and not "bills (plural) of attainder." There are different kinds of attainder's. I think if bill of pains and penalties was included that would have been clearly indicated.
Yawn. Never heard of the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
On what basis would you get Habeas Corpus if the government can detain you via a bill of pains and penalties?
Defunding prospectively is also different from defunding retroactively. Ex post facto might very well apply to a retroactive defunding, even if Bill of Attainder does not.
Certainly, there is no duty of the federal government to fund anyone. But, directing others not to fund a private entity raises freedom of association concerns.
Yeah. But it doesn't help you because Congress would have already found you guilty.
Wrong issue. I do think that ACORN has every right to apply for any grant, whether federal, state, or local for which they qualify. I also think that absent a conviction or pending indictment they shouldn't be subject to arbitrary or capricious disqualification for such grants.
The wording of the amendment does not specify how indirect the funding of ACORN has to be to be prohibited. Presumably this might then not only ban state and local governments receiving federal funds from funding ACORN, but might also ban funds from organizations associated with but not members of ACORN. For example, if I have The Great Norse Historical Society and provide rental space to ACORN at a reduced nonprofit rate, does a grant to my organization qualify as indirectly funding ACORN?
https://www.epls.gov/
Suspension and debarment can be imposed before an investigation is concluded and before there is any determination of wrongdoing.
Of course, this is done by the Executive Branch, not the legislature, but I'm not sure why the distinction between the President instructing people not to give federal money to some organizations is significantly different from Congress doing so.
The judicial power is not vested with Congress, it is a separate branch. Making a law and finding someone guilty is two different things.
It's very easy to find examples of people accusing ACORN of fraud. What's not so easy to find is actual proof of actual fraud by ACORN.
On 7/23/09, Darrell Issa (R), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a report (pdf) called "Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise?" The first sentence of the report is this:
And he makes this claim (p. 4):
Even though the report contains 88 pages and 436 footnotes, it does not document that claim. In the report, I can find proof of about a dozen convictions, all of temporary ex-workers (example). And these are not cases of ACORN committing fraud. They are cases of fraud being committed against ACORN. These workers created phony forms to get ACORN to pay them for work ACORN needed done that didn't actually get done. Also, these are cases of registration fraud, not voting fraud. As far as I can tell, ACORN's work has led to this many fraudulent votes: zero.
In yesterday's WSJ, there is an editorial ("ACORN Engages in Fraud") repeating the same claim:
The editorial mentions Issa's report, but it does not indicate that it got this claim from Issa's report, and it does not indicate that Issa's report fails to substantiate the claim.
Recently Fox quoted Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb) saying this:
Oddly, 70 became 30, and temporary workers became "officials." "Fraud" is a good word for describing temporary workers as "officials." As far as I can tell, this many ACORN "officials" have been convicted of fraud: zero.
And speaking of irresponsible accusations, let's remember that McCain said this:
What a surprise that the same crowd that gave us 'death panels' is now making bogus claims about ACORN.
This is helpful to know: "As required by law in most states, ACORN must submit all registration forms collected by its workers, including those flagged by ACORN as incomplete or suspicious." Given that ACORN has registered many thousands of new voters, it's not surprising that some of its temporary workers got into trouble. And whether the number is a dozen or 30 or 70, the size of this group compares favorably with the number of prominent Republicans who have been convicted of crimes in recent years. So maybe the GOP would do well to learn from ACORN.
ACORN's real crime is getting lots of poor people to the polls. And this is indeed threatening to the "fabric" of the GOP.
If ACORN's employees, acting as agents in the course of their duties for ACORN, knowingly submitted false registrations, that seems to be enough for a conviction. It's the same as if employees of a federal contractor turn in false time sheets to get paid for work not done.
My understanding is that ACORN is also being prosecuted under state laws that prohibit paying canvassers on a per-registation basis -- presumably because it increases the likelihood of false registrations.
If ACORN's only crime was to get lots of poor people to the polls, it was awfully sporting of the Democrat-controlled Senate to pull their funding just to help out the GOP . . . .
Jesse Helms objected, and found a reasonable-sounding basis for his objection: one of the member groups of ILGA was the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which in that day was an actual organization with members rather than merely a mail-drop at an FBI office. And there was, at least in theory, some chance that UN money might be channeled to ILGA and hence to NAMBLA, where it would be used to advocate for the rights of men and boys to make love with each other ... or something to that effect.
So Helms drafted legislation, and Congress passed it, which forbade the United States from paying its UN dues so long as there was any chance that they might be routed to an organization that advocates the repeal of age-of-consent laws or the "legalization of pedophilia". (Never mind that pedophilia is a mental condition; the crime is statutory rape.)
This took effect. Of course, the effect was predictable: ILGA expelled NAMBLA, pretending never to have known what its member was up to. (Ahem.) And so ILGA retained its status with the UN, and Jesse Helms found some other reason that the United States should refuse to pay its UN dues, but strangely yet keep its seat on the Security Council.
The gist: The law in question is an example of one which was clearly tailored to expel the political influence of one particular organization (NAMBLA) but did so under quite thorough cover of preventing the advocacy with public funds of a political position that most people find thoroughly revolting.
I know. I didn't say anything contrary to that. It's just that it's hard to picture how ACORN is "destroying the fabric of democracy" without casting fraudulent votes. McCain's remark (and similar remarks) creates the impression that ACORN is creating lots of fraudulent votes. Trouble is, this has not been demonstrated. But to the birther/teabagger/creationist crowd, facts don't matter much.
Let us know if you can find an instance of such a conviction.
I don't think "sporting" is quite the right word. I think 'cowardly' and 'ignorant' would be better words. As I have said many times, it would be good if we had a two-party system. Especially in the House of Lords.
CNN.
Yes, I know, a "quota" is not exactly the same as "paying per card". It's pretty close though, and the net effect is almost identical.
I'm familiar with that case, because it's the most famous case. But as far as I can tell, it's not an example of what was mentioned. Frank said this:
I asked if there have been any such convictions, i.e., convictions of ACORN officials for breaking "state laws that prohibit paying canvassers on a per-registation basis."
In the King County case, ACORN officials were not prosecuted. The targets of the prosecution were temporary workers. And I see no indication that the issue was "state laws that prohibit paying canvassers on a per-registation basis." Yes, the workers claimed they were under pressure to produce, in the form of a quota. But I see no indication that prosecutors interpreted this as a violation of "state laws that prohibit paying canvassers on a per-registation basis" (and I see no indication that WA even has such a law). Because such a violation would be on the part of the supervisory officials doing the "paying." But no such officials were prosecuted.
The charge was not "paying canvassers on a per-registation basis." The charge was "providing false information on a voter-registration form."
As I mentioned before, ACORN was a victim of this fraud, not a committer of the fraud. The prosecutor said this:
ACORN was blamed for "lax oversight," and agreed to "pay the county $25,000 as reimbursement for the costs of investigating the scheme … ACORN also has formally agreed to tighten supervision of its registration efforts, subject to fines for failure to live up to its promises … Officials from ACORN's national office assisted in the investigation, prosecutors said."
I don't see a conviction of an ACORN official, and I don't see anyone accused or convicted of violating a law against "paying canvassers on a per-registation basis."
Another article explaining essentially the same facts is here.
ACORN disputes the charges. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for 9/29. "At the end of the September preliminary hearing, Justice of the Peace William Jansen will decide whether there is enough evidence to send to District Court the felony case against the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, ACORN, and two defendants, Christopher Edwards and Amy Busefink. Edwards is the group's former Las Vegas field director. Busefink was the regional director for voter registration."
So Frank is correct in pointing out that there is such a prosecution, and I am correct in pointing out that there has not been a conviction. The number of ACORN-related accusations, investigations and prosecutions greatly exceeds the number of ACORN-related convictions.
Huh. Usually those laws are only enforced against people who record cops.
Now, if they had gone in and yanked out funding of existing program revenue, that's a different story. But, they didn't.
Organizations are excluded all the time in budget process. Therefore, only because ACORN were excluded after the fact, due to unusual circumstances.
This would not have been necessary if various bills hadn't specifically INCLUDED ACORN and affiliates.
Now, the question I would have is if singling out an organization for exclusion is punitive, wouldn't singling out one organization specifically to be funded be likewise punitive to other similar organizations?
What appears to me to be problematic, and I'm making assumptions on a minimal understanding of the facts here, so I could be wrong, is that Congress seems to be setting up a framework (or several frameworks) by which organizations can qualify for federal funds, and then excluding an organization by name from that framework.
And that is why we have the Bill of Attainder clause and interpret it to include bills of pains and penalties :-)
I am glad we are now on the same page.
Everyone:
The thing about this is that a different amendment was ALSO provided by the same Senator which would have required any organization with a conviction or pending indictment for voter fraud to be excluded from grants. It seems to me that this avoids all the Constitutional issues at stake here even though it is somewhat equivalent in effect. I don't know whether it passed though.
I oppose the ACORN amendment because I don't think it is Congress's duty to declare guilt and mete punishment. However, Congress can declare punishments and preventative measures which properly accompany or follow from judicial proceedings. The other amendment may well have prevented ACORN and many subsidiaries from receiving grants, but it would have done so in a proper way.
I believe it's purpose in the Constitution was to keep the vested powers seperated, and prevent their delegation by congress to any other body of men, or consolidation of them. i.e. IRS have attained the power to lay and collect taxes, and punish non-compliance. Stating the requirements of exercising powers have been met, evidence of guilt have been met, etc. etc.
Merely establishing a persons guilt by law rather than evidence would be ex post facto, and would have been repetitive. But a Bill that states a person has attaind the age of 35 in order that he may be elected President would be a different thing altogether.
There is no case for a bill of attainder because no bill passed Congress declaring ACORN guilty or convicted of any kind of crime. You guys want to just focus on the defunding while ignoring there never was a bill of attainder for the conviction of some crime.
P.S. No one ever heard of a bill of attainder that ever demanded less than capital punishment in England. If pains and penalties was sought then a bill for pains and penalties was written. A bill of attainder was never negotiated down for lessor punishment. It was voted on as written, and if called for less than capital punishment it never was a bill of attainder in the first place.
I wonder how much ACORN contributed to her election.
I guess you missed the part where I said ACORN was blamed for "lax oversight." That's why they agreed to pay the costs: because they contributed to the problem. Trouble is, "lax oversight" is not the same thing as being convicted of a crime. So feel free to explain why Sen. Johanns said "more than 30 ACORN officials have been convicted of fraud," and how that statement itself is anything other than a form of fraud.
And let us know if you ever locate facts to support Issa's claim ("some 70 Acorn employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud").
Maybe your point is that fraudulently accusing someone of fraud isn't fraud. IOKIYAR.
Is "officials" the best term to use? I don't know. Legally, it's a fairly vague term. Is it "fraudulent" to use that word instead of "employees"? I don't think so.
You should explain that to the prosecutor. It was him, not me, who said this:
A party that has been "cheated" is indeed a "victim."
You can choose to stick with a strict binary view of things, or you can realize that I can be a victim of fraud while also having been lax about preventing the fraud.
I don't think it's fair to describe low-level temporary employees as "officials." That word usually implies a position of responsibility. He could have said "workers" or "employees." He inflated their importance by calling them "officials."
By this logic, once Congress funds anything, reducing that funding in any way, shape or form becomes a bill of attainder UNLESS the target of those dollars stated that the reduction and/or cancellation of funds wasn't punishment (and even then, what does the recipient know?)
It seems that if the bill of attainder prohibition disallows defunding ACORN, we've admitted a positive claim of right or ownership on government funding or employment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I see a distinction between "you have a job but Congress orders that you not be paid" and "the Congress orders that you not be *given* any more money".
Congress can't order that you not be paid for work you have already done, or essentially fire you from a job. But I think it can refuse to authorize future funds for future work.
I think it would pass muster for Congress to make a named university inelligible for being awarded future grants.
That is especially true because each new Congress is not bound by that limit. By definition, it is only a one year exclusion.
The same report you mentioned also comments on a report by auditors hired by ACORN itself indicating that the organization as a whole has lax controls over many aspects of its operation, including the financial relationships between its tax exempt and politically active subsidiary organizations.
It strains credibility to assume that any massive effort to register many thousands of voters is going to be perfect. What is your basis for asserting that the problems at ACORN are disproportionate to their size?
And you seemingly fail to realize that ACORN had nothing to gain by producing bad registrations. They end up being checked and rejected. This was a case of temporary workers padding their pay by defrauding ACORN. ACORN had no incentive to allow this.
And what is your basis for asserting that the benefit of registering many new voters does not outweigh the problem of some bad registrations (especially since there is no proof they ever led to fraudulent votes)? That is, unless one thinks that getting more poor people to vote is a bad idea. Why does the GOP hate democracy?
Really? What "report by auditors" made that exact claim? Where is the proof to support this claim you're making?
And speaking of "lax controls," do you realize the Bush maladministration lost track of literally hundreds of tons of cash (link, pdf)? Probably not, because this was hardly reported in the US. That darn liberal media. And given the way the GOP glossed over this problem, it's hard to take them seriously when they make complaints about allegedly "lax controls."
Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws only violate the constitution in criminal matters. For this to apply, one must have to be convicted of a crime without a trial, and punished by having a right taken away by an act of congress.
Congressional appropriations are not any one's right, and deciding what to do with them is clearly under the authority intended for congress.
To be a bill of attainder, it has to be clear that Congress is either assuming your guilt of an existing law, or making past conduct illegal, and then convicting and sentencing you for it by depriving you of your rights.
In Calder vs. Bull, a couple is deprived of a property right, by the act of the legislature, wherein the outcome of a trial was overturned. Yet the Court ruled that the legislature was acting within it's authority to change the civil law. Even if the effect was to deprive someone of their property, the Court ruled that the legislature did not target a person or group with legislation that in effect makes the target guilty of a crime, thus requiring the property deprivation.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.