How about if the person in question is disguised as Snidely Whiplash and the engineering defect is a railroad switch that won’t work?
The bill specifically names ACORN, according to Nadler. I haven’t seen the exact language.
I’ve said this before, but in my view, any reputable news organization caring to do a story on this that goes any deeper than “O’Keefe and FOX News claim…” would pretty much have to insist on being given a chance to view the unedited tapes; unedited copies at the very least. Otherwise, aside from getting statements from the former ACORN employees themselves (also not forthcoming, apparently), there seems no objective way of ascertaining how accurate the edited versions are as to the events they purport to show.
O’Keefe of course is not obliged to do this if he don’t want to, but at this point anyone who believes that the excerpts shown were not cut to at least accentuate the point O’Keefe was trying to make, and possibly misrepresent the facts, is being rather foolish, IMO.
Then how are the defense contractors harmed?
In any event, even if the bill specifically refuses further funding for ACORN, by name, it’s not a bill of attainder. If the bill seeks to scoop back money already paid, or prohibits the government from paying ACORN for work already performed, then it is.
We’ll see. Nadler is a lawyer too. I’m sure he knows what he’s doing.
Either way, it’s a loss for the Republicans. It’s actually worse for them if the bill holds up Constitutionally.
My understanding is that it does name ACORN, but it doesn’t limit the effect of the bill to ACORN. There’s a line about “and any other government contractor that has had fraud charges against the government filed against it” or something like that.
I suspect he does too. I suspect he knows this theory of his has no legal merit, but it will draw public attention to the issue, framed in a way he likes.
Depends on if the fair maiden is tied to the tracks until she signs over the deed to the ranch.
I, for one, most heartily cheer our Republican critters for their bold and unselfish nobility! This is an act for the ages, where a political party casts aside any notion of party benefit, and boldly leads the way to good government, unhindered and unsullied by the corrupting influence of campaign contributions!
Like a grizzled old skank come to Jesus, they have stumbled into the light, and thrown aside the crass and cynical for the purity of civic virtue!
No doubt, some of my less accetping lefty brethren will look askance, they will suggest that the Pubbies simply fucked up, and will now scrample like cockroaches on speed scurrying to repair their most reliable monetary life-line but I say “Hold!” Let us give them the opportunity to show what they are truly made of, let us take this wonderful thing at face value! Indeed, I think the Demcritters should loudly and publicly applaud, and rush with enthusiasm to make this marvelous moment a turning point in our history!
Bravo, I say! And again, bravo! Let us rip them out, these corruptors, tear them root and branch, and if they fall by thei wayside, so much the better! This is a proud day for our SDMB Republicans, and I sncerely hope they rush to the Boards to crow and cheer themselves for their civic virtue. Both of them, if they are so available!
If the bill is broadly construed, it would apply to a number of defense contractors. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla) is attempting to compile a list of the “eligible” contractors (those who have committed fraud against the federal government or employ someone who has) to put into the Congressional record (see here). The unverified list contains names like Boeing, Raytheon, and General Electric (basically the backbone of our military-industrial complex!). Congress will never allow this result, but it doesn’t make it any less funny.
If it only applies to ACORN, then it sure looks like a bill of attainder to me. It essentially declares ACORN guilty of defrauding the government and forever bars them from receiving any federal funds.
Also, some perspective, from Rep. Grayson:
The problem with this analysis is that “not being able to get future federal funding” has never, in the history of bill of attainder jurisprudence, been considered a punishment.
Here’s the actual language:
The only section that is problematic is 2(a)(2): “No Federal funds in any other form may be provided to the organization.” To the extent that this prohibits ACORN from being paid funds they are already owed, it’s absolutely illegal as a bill of attainder. But apart from that, there’s no particular bar to forbidding them, even by name, from receiving future funds.
2(a)(3) is going to kick the MIC right in the balls. Blackwater too.
Assume for the sake of argument that this bill will only apply to ACORN and is only meant to apply to ACORN. Look at the defintion of a Covered Organization under section (b):
So, ACORN (and ACORN alone, for the sake of argument) is covered if they’ve been so much as indicted (not convicted) of violating a state or federal law, if they’ve had a corporate charter terminated, if they’ve filed a fraudulent form (which is a legal determination; Congress can’t simply declare it so), or employ any individual so covered. ACORN is thus barred from receiving federal funds on this basis. Meanwhile, unless Congress were to completely cut off this type of funding for voter registration groups, other such groups could continue to receive federal funds, even if they would be covered under this bill if not for the fact that they aren’t ACORN.
Is this a whoosh? Because I find it far offensive to refer to refer to someone with an actual mental deficiency as a retard. Now that it is no longer an official term, its sole use is that of a pejorative.
Congress can’t declare, “ACORN is guilty of filing a fraudulent form.” But they can say, “If ACORN has been found to have filed a fraudulent form, they are prohibited from receiving future funds.”
Well, have they?
(The preceding left my keyboard in a snark-free condition, if your irony detector registers anything above 100 millihicks, you need to recalibrate.)
I have no clue. They have filed fraudulent voting registrations, but (a) they did that on behalf of the registrants, and so far as I can discern had no discretion to NOT file them; and (b) Boards of Elections are not “regulatory agencies” within the ordinary meaning of the words. So I’d guess not, but who knows?
Since when is mental retardation not an "official’ term? It’s still the term of use in the DSM-IV, and the Axis II term I would apply diagnostically.
Now, I also have two brothers who are Republican. I aasumed that’s what Nars was saying as well.
It happens even in the best of families.
No. My brother is mentally retarded. The term “retard” is offensive. I originally put it in quotes because I was quoting Dio who used it pejoratively to compare Republicans to the mentally disabled.