But that’s what makes it a win-win. If it is interpreted to mean only ACORN, it’s illegal. If it’s broader, we snare Blackwater.
You mileage would obviously vary.
No, he probably couldn’t.
Post #3.
I don’t suppose you’d appreciate it if right-wingers rolled their eyeballs and ignored the links, in the same way left-wingers do the same when evidence is presented from ridiculously partisan right-wing organs?
This is not true. Ex-Governor Palin’s ethics charge defense did not come out of her own pocket. The state of Alaska paid for it.
And before you start crowing about how much it cost:
The Alaska Personnel Board has updated the total costs since those articles were published (updated 18 September 2009), and the total now stands at $340,153.03. cite
Any legal fees she incurred were her own doing, and not directly related to any ethics charge defense.
On the plus side, she did pronounce her own name correctly.
Do you realize that Rachel Maddow is a partisan hack? And that relying on her to formulate you point of view is akin to relyin on Glenn Beck for the same thing?
Actually… I have far more respect for Rachel than that. She’s more akin to O’Reilly (Beck I equate to Olberman, both blowhard doofuses).
So if you’re quoting as “evidence” is something you’ve seen on Rachel Maddow, that carries about as much weight as quoting something you saw on O’Reilly.
In other words, not much.
Of course you can have legislation that is for one company only. What the hell do you think private relief bills are?
What you cannot have is a bill that legislatively determines guilt.
It’s perfectly permissible for the government to refuse to fund grants without violating the prohibition against bills of attainder. (As I have noted before, if this bill has the effect of stopping payments already owed to ACORN, THEN it would be a Bill of Attainder.) And if the bill simply declared that ACORN had filed fraudulent forms, that would also be a bill of attainder. So far as I can tell, the bill doesn’t do either.
Whether it reaches companies like Blackwater, I can’t say.
I think you are confusing a few things. The money the state spent was not defending her, but investigating. On the other hand, she would have had to retain a lawyer for her own defense. It’s that money that had to come out of her own pocket. The legal fees she incurred **were **directly related to her ethics charge defense.
Both arguments are being proffered. Some dems have brought up the bill of attainder argument and want a ruling on whether the bill is constitutional as written.
If it stands as is, then it could snare a lot of other contractors. Makes perfect sense.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm It is a bill that is passed to punish a single person or group. it fits perfectly.
Did you read any of the actual cases included in your link to see what “punishment” means?
Ex Parte Garland - it’s a bill of attainder when former Confederate officers were disbarred and forbidden from holding any government office
Cummings v. Missouri - Priest convicted of preaching after not taking a loyalty oath that promises that the oath-taker never “by act or word” supported the Confederacy is a bill of attainder.
US v. Brown - a bill that names membership in the Communist Party specifically as a disqualification to serve as a union leader of any union.
And then we get to Nixon v. GSA Administrator. I know you didn’t read this one, because it says quite plainly:
The case says Congress’ requirement that Nixon turn over his tapes and that they not be destroyed was NOT a bill of attainder, despite naming Nixon specifically as the target of the law.
And in the last case your link cites, Selective Service v. Minnesota PIRG, we learn that a bill that denies federal financial assistance to male students between the ages of 18 and 26 who fail to register for the draft is NOT a bill of attainder.
Not one case has ever found that failing to provide federal grants is a punishment within the ambit of “bill of attainder.” Not one.
Did you read any of these, or just blindly post a link?
Note ,I said the ACORN bill fits as a bill of Attainder. I gave the cite because the first line is a clear definition. It fits perfectly. I made no claims about the references as being relevant. No claim at all. Zero. So as a professional obfuscater you throw up an irrelevant smokescreen. Good job. But try and get back to the subject sometimes.
Well, yes, except for all the lying. And if you are content with an utter and ruthless cynicism as the correct and proper basis for civic conduct, nothing I’m going to say is likely to persuade you otherwise.
It is, finally, rather a matter of faith, isn’t it? We who are committed to democracy have undertaken a kind of secular faith: we believe. There is no proof for that dogma, we hold the truths to be self-evident. Arguing over faith is a fool’s errand, I don’t intend to undertake it, you either accept if, or you do not.
If you did accept it (and, apparently, you do not), then it becomes immediately obvious to the meanest intelligence that if a political party is permitted to use the power of government to secure its power, democracy is threatened. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Well, duh!”
Yes, it may be that our nation is nothing more than a game of Monopoly played for keeps, and our forms of governing nothing more than an empty formality conducted by well-groomed savages. There are no “rights”, there is no “rule of law”, there is only power. This may be so. (Have you ever met a cynic who didn’t think of himself as a hard-headed realist?)
I believe in these things, you do not. So it goes. As I said, a matter of secular faith, we made it all up, it is based on nothing more than our insistence on believing it. There is no evidence to offer, no proof to assert.
But, perhaps, in the future you will restrain yourself from using such terms as “liberty” and “justice” in supporting your own arguments, you’ve pretty much chucked such foolish notions aside. You are free of such nonsense, and if you bandy them about, it would be hypocritical for a man like yourself, who admires honesty above all things.
You may think the definition fits, but the law as applied by the courts does not. You cannot, in other words, simply read a term of art like “Bill fo Attainder,” and a one paragraph definition on a web page, and have a full understanding of the law. You have to understand the caselaw and how it has been applied.
You understand that it’s completely contradictory to offer both arguments? If one is true, the other can’t be; they exclude each other.
Cite for the lying?
It’s your faith based approach that’s the problem. You take it on faith that you and yours are good and proper and those that oppose them are misguided, if not evil. Taking that as your starting point, everything else you say, and have said over the last 10 years makes sense and is consistent (which is an entirely different thing than being correct.)
ACORN is a left-wing activist group disguised as a bunch of doogooders. They’re Moveon.org with a cover. It doesn’t matter that nobody believes the cover, they just have to be able to argue it so that they can say that people who object to their activism are against the poor.
I’ve seen little that is more cynical than the constant invoking of the poor and disenfranchised of this country, exploiting them yet further for mere political purposes, by organization like ACORN and the Democrats in genereral.
ACORN itself has slimed its way into the government in an attempt to wrest more permanent and lasting control to the left.
So, when I hear you complain about Republicans using the “power of the government to secure its power,” I laugh at your naivete to wonder how you can see so clearly out of one eye, but be so blind in the other. What do you think ACORN is doing? What do you think its purpose is?
When Ted Kennedy was ill, the Democratic state government changed the law to prevent the possiblility of a Republican being appointed. Afterwards, when the situation changed and the new rule led to the possiblity of a Republican again, they changed it back!
Personally, I can’t think of a better use of Govenment power in service of party and country than to slap down and wipe out a bunch of sleazy scumbags like ACORN.
But… you think they’re the good guys. Whatever. I suppose those are the hazards of a faith based perspective.
Have fun at church.
You’ll need to quote the relevant sections rather than have me hunt for them if you wish to pursue the discussion.
I am glad you are so sure, but they asked the lawyers to look into it because Barney Frank asked for a clarification. He saw the law as a Bill of Attainder and thought it was unconstitutional. He then asked them to obtain some legal advice.
Free Voter Records & Election Results The legislation is the Defund ACORN act. In case you think it was not specific. By defunding ACORN they are punishing the organization .They did not have a trial. That is against the constitution. The whole idea of not allowing a Bill of Attainder was to prevent the legislature from punishing a person, organization or corporation without a trial determining innocence or guilt first. I have been reading a bit about it. It seems you most of you righties are tap dancing around and declaring it constitutional. But there are at least as many that say it is one. I still think it is one.
Punishment has a specific legal definition - and it does not include Congress deciding where and how to spend money.
Ha Ha! They don’t need a trial! Steve King (R, Iowa) has already declared ACORN guilty of being a criminal enterprise! Case closed!