ACORN and the Bill of Attainder

[Wry Catcher]

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation stripping ACORN of funding?

 

[veritas]

I would assume not. It's not like they are asking for money back, they are just stopping any more money from going out.

 

[Si modo]

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation stripping ACORN of funding?

No.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seems to me ACORN (or some of their employees) acted egregiously; yet, Haliburton subsidiary KGB (allegedly) electrocuted more than a dozen American servicemen by faulty electrical wiring. Does the Congress feel KGB is less egregious than ACORN (or simply more powerful and therefore to be feared)?

 

[Si modo]

Seems to me ACORN (or some of their employees) acted egregiously; yet, Haliburton subsidiary KGB (allegedly) electrocuted more than a dozen American servicemen by faulty electrical wiring. Does the Congress feel KGB is less egregious than ACORN (or simply more powerful and therefore to be feared)?

Tu quoque arguments are lame.

 

[pal_of_poor]

There's been a lot of hoopla about secret hidden-camera videos of low-level employees of the anti-poverty group ACORN lately -- some of them quite embarrassing. I haven't seen any video yet from "real reporters" James O'Keefe or Hannah Giles of an ACORN employee who works in the agency's Charlotte, N.C., office by the name of Hector Vaca. And don't hold your breath waiting for Vaca to appear on the Fox News Channel anytime soon, because he doesn't fit the story line.

Vaca was one of eight ACORN employees in North Carolina who was just laid off because of funding problems -- problems closely related to the recent exposes by the right-wing media. His work had nothing to do with what millions of folks with the time and the money to be sitting on a couch watching TV at 5 p.m. when Glenn Beck comes around think ACORN mainly does, i.e., advising garishly dressed prostitutes and pimps.





Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bunc ... 99433.html

please adhere to rules governing copyrighted material-del

 

[Ame®icano]

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation stripping ACORN of funding?

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation taxing CEO bonuses?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seems to me ACORN (or some of their employees) acted egregiously; yet, Haliburton subsidiary KGB (allegedly) electrocuted more than a dozen American servicemen by faulty electrical wiring. Does the Congress feel KGB is less egregious than ACORN (or simply more powerful and therefore to be feared)?

Tu quoque arguments are lame.

LOL. Since when is a question an argument ?
I suggest some ACORN employees acted egregiouisly and some KGB employees acted with undo care.
No actual harm ocurred in the former case, deaths occured in the later.
There is not time - nor do I have all the facts at my disposal - to argue whether KGB acted egregiously, or had a duty to protect the servicemen and breached that duty; I do know that the Congress acted against ACORN, and that KGB and its parent company, Halliburton, continue to benefit from government largess.
And I wonder why.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation stripping ACORN of funding?

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation taxing CEO bonuses?

Speaking of logical falacies, above is an actual red herring.

 

[blu]

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation stripping ACORN of funding?

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation taxing CEO bonuses?

please avoid logical fallacies in the future

 

[blu]

I am not a lawyer, but it does seem strange to me that a group can get banished in such a way without having any trial or even a chance to defend themselves against congress (I didn't hear about them speaking before Congress so if they did I missed it)

 

[Ame®icano]

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation stripping ACORN of funding?

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation taxing CEO bonuses?

Speaking of logical falacies, above is an actual red herring.

CEO bonuses were signed in contract. Congress is at fault for the imposition of retroactive tax liabilities.

 

[Contumacious]

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

True.

But receiving federal largesse is a PRIVILEGE which is NOT Constitutionally sanctioned. So you can not make reference to one article of the constitution while ignoring others .


.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

True.

But receiving federal largesse is a PRIVILEGE which is NOT Constitutionally sanctioned. So you can not make reference to one article of the constitution while ignoring others .


.

I don't think you understand the issue.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation taxing CEO bonuses?

Speaking of logical falacies, above is an actual red herring.

CEO bonuses were signed in contract. Congress is at fault for the imposition of retroactive tax liabilities.

Maybe, I don't know the detail. But, as you suggest, if the contracts were legal before Congress acted, then an act of congress outlawing the beneftis of them to a select group would seem to be a bill of attainder and prohibited by the Constitution. However, if the act of Congress only effected future contracts of those receiving federal largess, it would not.

 

[Contumacious]

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

True.

But receiving federal largesse is a PRIVILEGE which is NOT Constitutionally sanctioned. So you can not make reference to one article of the constitution while ignoring others .


.

I don't think you understand the issue.

Get an attorney, call the NAACP.


.

 

[Si modo]

Seems to me ACORN (or some of their employees) acted egregiously; yet, Haliburton subsidiary KGB (allegedly) electrocuted more than a dozen American servicemen by faulty electrical wiring. Does the Congress feel KGB is less egregious than ACORN (or simply more powerful and therefore to be feared)?

Tu quoque arguments are lame.

LOL. Since when is a question an argument ? ...

Ah, then your question is irrelevant.

.... I suggest some ACORN employees acted egregiouisly and some KGB employees acted with undo care.
No actual harm ocurred in the former case, deaths occured in the later.
There is not time - nor do I have all the facts at my disposal - to argue whether KGB acted egregiously, or had a duty to protect the servicemen and breached that duty; I do know that the Congress acted against ACORN, and that KGB and its parent company, Halliburton, continue to benefit from government largess.
And I wonder why.

So what? As I said, your tu quoque point is still lame.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Did the Congress act illegally by passing legislation stripping ACORN of funding?

No. ACORN shouldn't have had federal funding to begin with.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Bill of Attainder does not apply in this scenario.