ACORN is suing to get Federal funding restored. Is it unconstitutional to cut funding?

The lawyers for ACORN have found a reasonable case for claiming that the Congressional bill cutting their funding was unconstitutional, although I do not think the case is strong enough for them to win. While being technical, what it boils down to is that ACORN can't be found guilty of a crime by Congress, or by the media, or by Utube. It can only be found guilty by a legitimate court.So while you can say in your question that ACORN did such and such, it isn't guilty of it unless a court finds it so.

The constitution specifically prohibits "bills of attainder" which is the legislature, Congress, finding someone guilty by passing a bill. What is not entirely clear, and this is what the defense will be, is whether cutting the money given to ACORN constitutes something similar enough to finding them guilty and punishing them. If the Congressional bill had fined ACORN that would have created a lot stronger argument; but cutting funding isn't quite the same thing as fining.

Still, the argument can be made. Congress had shown no particular interest in cutting funding for ACORN until these private videos came out. Then it suddenly passed a bill cutting its funding.

There has been no trial, no legal investigation completed, no substantial hearings. Congress has certainly broken the spirit of the law and the constitution whether or not it has done something actually unconstitutional.To give an example of a recent ruling that gave broader than literal scope to the notion of "bill of attainder", consider SBC Communications, Inc. , et.

Al.V. Federal Communications Commission, et. Al.

The basic legal issue was whether it was unconstitutional for Congress in enacting the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to ban Bell Operating Companies from engaging in long distance, and other services. The District Court ruled for the Plaintiffs (BOCs) by holding § 271-275 unconstitutional bills of attainder. However, the 5th Circuit reversed the case.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, which indicates that it did not think this was really a bill of attainder but it is not as strong as an actual ruling.At any rate, it shows that an unconstitutional "bill of attainder" doesn't have to be something literally the same as an 18th century Act of Parliament to be taken seriously by the courts.

The lawyers for ACORN have found a reasonable case for claiming that the Congressional bill cutting their funding was unconstitutional, although I do not think the case is strong enough for them to win. While being technical, what it boils down to is that ACORN can't be found guilty of a crime by Congress, or by the media, or by Utube. It can only be found guilty by a legitimate court.

So while you can say in your question that ACORN did such and such, it isn't guilty of it unless a court finds it so. The constitution specifically prohibits "bills of attainder" which is the legislature, Congress, finding someone guilty by passing a bill. What is not entirely clear, and this is what the defense will be, is whether cutting the money given to ACORN constitutes something similar enough to finding them guilty and punishing them.

If the Congressional bill had fined ACORN that would have created a lot stronger argument; but cutting funding isn't quite the same thing as fining. Still, the argument can be made. Congress had shown no particular interest in cutting funding for ACORN until these private videos came out.

Then it suddenly passed a bill cutting its funding. There has been no trial, no legal investigation completed, no substantial hearings. Congress has certainly broken the spirit of the law and the constitution whether or not it has done something actually unconstitutional.

To give an example of a recent ruling that gave broader than literal scope to the notion of "bill of attainder", consider SBC Communications, Inc. , et. Al.

V. Federal Communications Commission, et. Al.

The basic legal issue was whether it was unconstitutional for Congress in enacting the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to ban Bell Operating Companies from engaging in long distance, and other services. The District Court ruled for the Plaintiffs (BOCs) by holding § 271-275 unconstitutional bills of attainder. However, the 5th Circuit reversed the case.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, which indicates that it did not think this was really a bill of attainder but it is not as strong as an actual ruling. At any rate, it shows that an unconstitutional "bill of attainder" doesn't have to be something literally the same as an 18th century Act of Parliament to be taken seriously by the courts.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.