How does the Supreme Court decision UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) apply to ACORN's recent suit?

I am not a lawyer. That being said, this is my understanding of the matter: In United States v. Brown, a statute holding that a member of the Communist Party couldn't legally have a leadership role in a labor union was struck down as unconstitutional because it was held to be a bill of attainder.

The courts held that the legislative branch could deny someone the right to lead a labor union based on past criminal actions, or even general characteristics that would give a reasonable expectation that a person might act with the intent to harm the United States (they were looking at this as falling under the Commerce Clause). However, the determination of guilt and decisions about who exactly could be considered to possess those general characteristics were not up to the Legislative branch. The legislature isn't allowed to use the law to punish a person or specific group that hasn't been tried.It violates the separation of powers of the branches of government and deprives those affected of due process.

I don't see how the Defund ACORN Now Act could not be found to be a bill of attainder. They're specifically singling out an organization by name for punitive action based on an indictment (an accusation), not a conviction in the court of law. The legislature is punishing ACORN (and its affiliates) because they assume they're guilty of something, not because it has been proven.

That's pretty much the definition of a bill of attainder.

The Supreme Court decision UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) apply to ACORN's lawsuit, by way of the fact that the Defund ACORN Act does not meet the legal definition of a bill of attainder and its general provisions provide no proof of punitive intent and further the interests of not providing taxpayer funds to organizations that violate campaign finance and election laws. -quote- "In United States v.

Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) (cited by von Spakovsky in footnote 8 of his article), in which the United States Supreme Court held that in designating Communist Party members as persons who cannot hold union office, Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes, the Court stated: “The best available evidence, the writings of the architects of our constitutional system, indicates that the Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply – trial by legislature. Von Spakovsky: “The bill of attainder clause has never been read to prevent Congress from defunding an organization or a corporation whose employees engage in criminal conduct, and it has rarely been invoked by the modern Supreme Court. Indeed, the Court has ‘not invalidated legislation on bill-of-attainder grounds since 1965.

’” -end of quote.

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.