filed under Civil Rights | Comics
Whoops — Tea Party Forgets Bills Of Attainder Are Unconstitutional
2:01PM ON
12/14/2009
BY
Dave Segal
I have a short post up at HuffPo, about the obvious ridiculousness of the self-appointed defenders of the Constitution and all that is righteous pushing through a bill of attainder to single out ACORN for punishment without trial:
We’ll know the Mad Hatters really care about the Constitution when they start heaping praise upon the small minority of elected officials who stood up to the unconstitutional “Defund ACORN Act.”
House Minority Leader John Boehner offered the measure in September in the wake of the emergence of video showing ACORN employees taking the bait of right-wing activists posing as pimp and prostitute. It was conceived, concocted, and even named with one undeniable intention: to single out a particular organization for punishment, by making it ineligible for federal funds. But even the most rudimentary survey of the the Constitution makes it clear that this isn’t allowed. According to Article 1, Section 9, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,” with bill of attainder typically defined along these lines: “A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.”
Perhaps learning how to read is now considered a form of judicial activism:
U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued a preliminary injunction against the government, saying it is in the public’s interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding. Gershon found that ACORN had was “singled out by Congress for punishment” without “any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt.”
December 14th, 2009 at 4:25PM
bob Says:
Acorn was not the only one listed in that bill.
also, not GIVING any more money to them is not singling them out for punishment.
Hence, no bill of attainder . . . .
It will be overturned by sensible judges . . .
bob,
portsmouth ri
home of Mr. Kennedy, our fine representative . . . .
Reply
December 26th, 2009 at 6:24PM
Ken Says:
I don’t know where the prior commenter. Bob, gets his information, but the bill in question in fact ONLY mentions ACORN. Hence, a bill of attainder. The full text of the bill is here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_111-68/Division_B . Scroll down to Section 163 for the unconstitutional language singling out ACORN. Further, the government’s own brief in opposition to ACORN argues that Section 163 is not a bill of attainder because, “even though it singles out ACORN, it does not do so for the purpose of punishment.” So — the question of punishment is a good question, BUT THE TRUTH THAT ACORN IS SINGLED OUT IS NOT DISPUTED.
As to the punishment angle, the law doesn’t “not give” money to ACORN as the commenter suggests. Rather the law FORBIDS any money going to ACORN even if some federal agency already has a contract in place with ACORN.
Again, I don’t know where the prior commenter gets his information (Fox News?), but these facts are out there. You can read the whole 20+ page court decision if you want to. It’s here: http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/121409gershon.pdf
I say all this not to defend ACORN, but to defend the Constitution. ACORN may indeed be guilty of something deserving of punishment. I do not know. That is for a court in due process to decide.
as the court decision states, “Enacted as a bulwark against tyranny by Congress, 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.
Let’s not let congress put ACORN on trial, that is for the judicial branch of government.
Ken
Portsmouth, RI
Proud home of Congressman Patrick Kennedy
Reply