ACORN sues for it.
Saying a resolution by the House of Representatives that barred Acorn from receiving federal aid violated the Constitution by singling the antipoverty group out for punishment, lawyers for Acorn filed a lawsuit on Thursday that seeks to restore the financing.
The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in Brooklyn, says that the Congressional resolution constitutes a “bill of attainder,” or a legislative determination of guilt without a trial. In the suit, Acorn, which came under fire especially from conservative critics after a series of embarrassing scandals, said it was penalized by Congress “without an investigation” and has been forced to cut programs that counsel struggling homeowners, and to lay off workers.
But not to hire lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits.
Chutzpah.
As corporations go, ACORN is just about the dumbest out there. Keeping their name in the limelight is dumb enough, but suing your benefactor for access to more funds? Priceless. You just know there are plenty of ACORN-sympathetic critters in Congress who would quietly vote to restore funding, but not while a lawsuit is pending.
“said it was penalized by Congress “without an investigation” ”
Then by all means, let’s get one going…
“It’s a classic trial by the Legislature,” Amazing that the system works both ways. Was wondering what kind of law firm would take such a case. Wonder no more. Look at some of the other “causes”.
http://ccrjustice.org/
I just can’t wait to see Glenn Beck make fun of this one.
And Greta will be having fun with it as well.
I hope it goes to trial, because discovery works both ways…..
Anyone out there familar with the “doctrine of sovereign immunity”…suggest you look it up… and all will be revealed. Best
Chutzpah is one of two words that describe this action.
The other is Hubris. The ancient Greeks were well aware of its folly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
There seems to be quite the sense of entitlement in the left-thinking sphere.
I’m in a debate on the Stopak Amendment. The cry from the left is that “it restricts women’s reproductive rights.” I challenged this on – well, you can challenge it on a lot of things, but I took exception to the use of the word “rights”, pointing out that not one word of any of the various States’ abortion laws were changed.
The logic presented is that since poor women can’t afford to pay for their own abortions, they need insurance paid for by the State to get them. A refusal by the State to do so therefore effectively (the word used) removes their right to get one.
I expounded on the difference between “right” and “entitlement” and how the first encompasses certain things that the government is forbidden to deny you from earning via your own efforts, but the second appears nowhere in the Constitution. You have to earn your own way in this life. I am guaranteed the right to own a gun, but no one has to buy it for me, etc., etc. But this fails to reach them. Apparently it’s my fault that someone else is poor and I am thus obligated to buy them certain things that they haven’t earned on their own.
Then there’s the “why single out abortion? Insurance pays for other medical procedures.” Well – a) abortion is immoral, b) absent rape, pregnancy is the entirely predictable result of a voluntary act, c) if you’re pregnant that means that your reproductive system is working perfectly and you’re not sick, d) there are other medical procedures like breast augmentation that insurance doesn’t pay for, etc., etc. Apparently the answer is that I hate women and want to control them.
Hey, it’s fun to watch. I made a comment on how ironic it is that the prediction that the government would now control what kind of healthcare we had access to – a prediction they denied – has now come true, but not in a way that they desired. I guess it’s a question of whose ox gets gored.
If they are now having financial issues then they better start asking what are they paying for when they are clearly receiving the worst legal advice in history.
As another commenter noted: “Discovery Goes Both Ways.”
Much as I dislike ACORN and think they should be defunded, it looks like they’ve got a point. The resolution does sound an awful lot like a bill of attainder, which are unconstitutional for good reason. The government/Congress should be in the business of setting policy & law, before which everyone is equal. Once they start naming names instead, that goes out the window.
I would prefer they not trample the Constitution for this, particularly since there must be any number of constitutionally legal methods to defund ACORN.
I would assume that the money given to ACORN is through some sort of government contract administered by a government agency. All government contracts I have ever seen have a clause that enables the government to cancel “for the convenience of the government”. No other reason is needed to terminate a contract. The reason for this clause is that all government funds are appropriated by Congress. If an agency contracts for services that the Congress does not appropriate the funds the agency then has this out. Rarely happens but is happening more and more. For example, I am aware a numerous 5 year contracts awarded for services (mainly people contracted at X dollars per hour) for, say, engineering services. The government is increasingly converting these contractor billets to civil service positions. The government then uses their convenience of the government clause to modify (or cancel) the contract previously executed.
So if ACORN is under contract with an agency I’d say they don’t have a case at all.
Hard to see this one going anywhere. But it will be fun to watch.
But there’s no right to public funding. Congress needs no justification to refuse to fund ACORN. They can do it for any reason or no reason at all.
You don’t have a “right” to my money, pal. Take your dog and pony show down the road.