Just saw this news report from AP on FoxNews:
A federal judge has ruled the U.S. government’s move to cut off funding to ACORN is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued the preliminary injunction against the government Friday. She ruled that it is in the public’s interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.
ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress’ decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an organization.
A lawyer for ACORN says the decision sends a sharp message to Congress that it can’t single out an individual or organization without due process.
What they are essentially claiming here is that Congress passed a Bill of Attainder directed at ACORN:
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.
I’m no lawyer, but since when is it considered punishment to refuse to fund an organization or person? Does that mean every other organization that Congress chooses to not spend our tax dollars on can claim they are being singled out and punished?
This is a ridiculous ruling, this judge is wrong, and this will get reversed if our government bothers to appeal it… be interesting to see if they do appeal since they probably like the idea of being “forced” to fund ACORN. That way they can fund this bunch of crooks and say they had no choice, the judge made them do it.
This ruling does send a sharp message though… government spending is so out of control, organizations can now claim an inalienable right to our money.
|
|
|
|
Tags: Judicial System
[...] Gershon’s decision is being attacked on the right (here, here, and here) and praised on the left. Before the decision, it seemed that the lawsuit was a [...]