Judge Rules Effort to Strip ACORN of Federal Funds Unconstitutional

It will not stand.

 

This is such a blatant example of judicial activism when this gets returned by a higher court I do hope the judge gets slapped down.

 

Agreed!

Just who the deep and hot well is the Center for Constitutional Rights anyway?




Evidentally they view the funding as an entitlement.
Congress still has the control if only they have the backbone to exercise their constitutional privilege: They can still withhold monies despite recourse in the court...... The courts have no enforcement rights upon Congress.
The executive branch has enforcement authority: But Congress can cut the purse strings by which they use to exercise that authority: ..... But the Congress doesn't have back bone.
The judges in the courts can be impeached: The Congress has power over the courts to remove judges 'for cause'. For cause can mean personal impropriety and it can mean failure to honor the construct of government according to the constitution.
And the judiciary can make a ruling but can't enforce it upon the Congress!

 

Just who the deep and hot well is the Center for Constitutional Rights anyway?

Funding:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6148


What is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Constitutional_Rights

What was the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergency_Civil_Liberties_Committee

 

I am curious, not arguing. Where in the Constitution is the use of federal funds by organizations covered? It seems a strange argument to me. I can see that a group may violate federal law in the use of funds ... but it seems a stretch to say it is either constitutional or unconstitutional. Due process is required in any legal matter. I would be just as happy if all federal funds to all private groups was cut off.

Activist judgments mean the judge did not agree with me. :laugh:

 

We can then safely assume that you have no problem with your tax dollars going to an organization that is completely willing to help people set up an underage child trafficking operation?


Good grief. I know you hate agreeing with conservatives, but this is what happens when you just decide to be contrarian.

Go ahead. Swallow your pride, and admit we're right on this one. Sheesh.

 

That is not what I am saying at all. I can see bringing suite under a federal law and a judge rule by that federal law. I do not understand where this issue is addressed in the constitution.

I would be happy if federal funds were cut off to all private groups.

Here is the crux of the matter:

If this is true than the judge had no choice but to rule in Acorn's favor. She may hate Acorn, but under the law you have to be guilty and proven guilty to receive punishment. Under law you cannot simply cut someone off simply because you do not like them. A legal process must be gone through to cut them off and from the ruling of the judge this was not done by the government. If this is true, her hands were tied.




[/QUOTE]

 

Providing funds to any organization is not a legal matter. It is a choice to be given and taken away at will with no prior notice or explanation. The tax payers are not on the hook to communist organizations like Acorn just because it is a libby pet project.

As I said this will not stand. It will be over tirned and with prejudice I hope.

 

Of course it is a legal matter. There has to be a law which gives guidelines for the giving of federal funds.

It may or it may not stand. Time will tell.

 

That's right it is called the 1oth amendment much less to an immoral communist organization like Acorn. Acorn has nor value or morality.

 

[/QUOTE]

I disagree with you. There is no constitutional right to receive federal funds. I really don't see your argument here; can you elaborate?

 

Of course she can. "Acorn" is not an individual, and does not have to be afforded the rights a US citizen receives.

That's pretty simple.

And yes, I hate Acorn. They were willing to help an individual engage in child trafficking. There is no defense for those monsters.

 

How can it be Unconstitutional to stop funding them, when it wasn't Constitutional for Congress to fund them in the first place?

 

Laws apply to organizations also. So it as simple as you imply. If what they were doing is legal than she, at least legal in her understanding, had no choice, regardless of what any of us desire. Now a higher court can either agree or disagree with her. But until her decision is overturned they will continue to be given federal funds. If her decision is never challenged or is upheld the same holds.

Many years ago I knew a young man who committed murder. He admitted it. There was no question. But the police trampled his Maranda rights and though the judge was very angry and said so from the bench he, the judge, had to release him as innocent. He told the young man that he, the judge, knew he was going to receive much criticism from people who did not understand the law, but that his hands were tied and he had to release him.

It was a crime of passion. To my knowledge the man has never been in trouble with the law again. Does that excuse the murder. No. But legally the judge had to release him.

 

Sorry, but individual rights and the rights of organizations are not the same. They are legally not the same entity.

Furthermore, there is no "right to receive federal funds." Your arguments were weak to start with...they're getting anorexic now.

May I remind the class...these clowns were willing to help someone start up a child s_x trafficking enterprise.

 

It would seem to me that if Congress has the ability to selectively fund this sort of stuff (not agreeing that they actually have the authority) then it stands to reason that they have the ability to selectively defund the same.

As has been pointed out - there exists no Consititutional right to receive Congressional taxpayer funded appropriations.

 

Apples and unicorns.

Not even close enough to qualify for "apples and oranges".