Jerrold Nadler, NY 8th District(D) believes Ban on ACORN funding unconstitutional - Image house.gov
From
Politico: One of the few Democrats in the House that voted against removing Federal Funds on the group “ACORN”, is arguing that the Congressional Ban may be unconstitutional. ACORN, who’s offices and employees have come under scrutiny for voter fraud and
counseling pimps on how to avoid taxes as well as bring underage children into the country to work as prostitutes, lost funding in bans from both the Congress and the Senate
last week. Nadler, one of the 75 Democrats who voted to retain funding (345 Congressional Representatives voted to rescind funding for ACORN from a student aid bill), insists the exclusion of ACORN (Primary Function –Housing – Community Activism) is unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment – sections 9 and 10. Nadler insists that the Constitution’s language regarding the passage of “Bills of Attainder” prevents the Congress from passing any laws that would prohibit funding as part of a penalty.
Article 9 states
(source Cornell): “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”, Section 10 refers to the same language, but that is in regards to the individual states and their relationship with the Federal Government. A bill of Attainder: (
)source: Free Dictionary)A legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime, usually treason, without trial and subjecting that person to capital punishment and attainder. Such acts are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Further “Attainder” (According to:
Merriam Webster) has to do with: the removal of civil rights of an individual who has been sentenced to death – normally for treason. In 1965,
(source techlawjournal)“"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965)
Therefore, a clause in the U.S. Constitution that referred to an act of treason and suspension of civil rights, was interpreted by the court as outmoded and then updated in one particular case (U.S. v. Brown 1965 – The 9th District
applied a civil rights case and determined to be “liberally construed”, in this case, regarding an individual’s rights.ACORN is not an individual, it is a group that, for all intents and purposes, should serve a noble purpose, but, unfortunately, involves itself in areas that are illegal. A perfect case for
R.I.C.O. , rather than a “victim” of a Bill of Attainder, vis a vis being denied further funding due to criminal activity. Nadler’s argument in this case is moot – an organizations funding does not fall under any section of the Constitution, nor does the 1965 decision regarding the rights of individuals to a trial (which is the entire gist of this either in its “arcane” form or the updated “liberal” interpretation from the California 9th District Court).
ACORN’s offices should be under a thorough investigation to reinstate funding, and one would think that those 75 Democrats would be demanding an investigation into all aspects of ACORN’s activities in order to allow them to continue to receive the largess of the American People (i.e. taxpayer’s dollars.) The argument that one is not responsible for the actions of one’s employees, could also be taken into consideration, however, the fact that the “pimp tax evading” advise was offered at ACORN offices in multiple states, across the country, would suggest that it is more “policy” than the individual act of an “employee”. The same would apply to the instances of voter fraud: One person being paid a “per capita” fee for each voter registration, who then registered “Mickey Mouse” in order to make a buck, would not penalize an entire organization, however, that instance occurring in 14 states, in multiple areas, might again, go to an organizational “policy”.
Therefore, it is this writer’s opinion that the Congress and Senate acted appropriately in removing funding from said Organization, regardless of the fact that such was based upon multiple criminal complaints that are directly related to Federal Law (Voter Fraud, Human Trafficking). It is not “Civil Right” for any group to receive Tax-Payers dollars – and it is the right of the Congress to remove and or award funds at any time. It is, after all, interpretation of the Constitution, on the one side, strict interpretation of the law, and on the other, a more “liberal” (9th District Court, 1965) view. Perhaps the Supreme Court should weigh in on this particular case, as it would be an interesting judgment regarding individual rights versus the rights of an “Organization” as it applies to treason and due process (civil rights).
