The Center for Constitutional Rights announced on Thursday that it would be filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of ACORN in an attempt to prevent Congress from voting to defund the scandal-ridden organization. In addition to a petition to stop Congress from exercising its appropriation power, the lawsuit would seek a temporary restraining order against Congress to halt the already enacted defunding. Jules Lobel, an attorney with the Center said “It’s not the job of Congress to be the judge, jury, and executioner. We have due process in this country, and our Constitution forbids lawmakers from singling out a person or group for punishment without a fair investigation and trial.” 

The Center for Constitutional Rights has a very interesting view of the Constitution itself. The political decision of Congress to appropriate monies or enact laws is not controlled by due process of laws (which is a judicial issue) but rather with adherence to the Constitution. The appropriation power itself is in Article I and this power is limited to certain enumerated powers (none of which remotely deal with the activities of ACORN) and to those laws and appropriations which are necessary and proper to the limited enumerated powers.

What sorts of things does ACORN do with tax dollars? It uses its federal funds to fight foreclosures, which is to say that it takes tax dollars from all of us and uses those dollars to take sides in civil foreclosure actions against the mortgage holders. The reason for courts is to make sure that civil actions like foreclosures follow the law and that the rights of private parties are protected from abuse. ACORN determines that because one party is the defendant in a foreclosure action and another party is the plaintiff than the defendant is entitled to legal advocacy at the taxpayer’s expense.

Congress is not ending the funding for ACORN because of the biased use of tax dollars, though. Congress is ending the funding of ACORN because of egregious, videotaped, and clear mischief by ACORN employees who were shown abetting immigrant child prostitution, tax evasion, and even possible homicide. Lobel believes, apparently, that ACORN has a constitutional right to tax dollars and that the deprivation of these dollars is a judicial, rather than a legislative, action.

This is also a very curious reading of the Constitution. The Constitution not only gives the House the sole privilege of originating bills for raising revenue, but defines the requirements for their enactment: Passage of a bill by both houses of Congress and which is either signed by the president, not signed but not vetoed, or vetoed and overridden by a two thirds majority in both houses. The Center for Constitutional Rights is not alleging that Congress did not meet the clear requirements of the Constitution to enact laws, including appropriations or un-appropriations, but the Center is rather saying that the Constitution itself is wrong: Congress has a requirement to look at its legislative processes as if those were judicial processes.

Lobel also speaks as if a decision by Congress not to appropriate funds for a particular activity was tantamount to the imposition of a death sentence when he described the congressional action against ACORN as Congress acting as “judge, jury, and executioner.” In our republic and under our Constitution, there is no right to federal funds at all. The denial of those funds is not an extraordinary situation, equivilent to a death penalty case, but rather it reflects the normal status of citizen taxpayers who provide the federal government with that wealth which it then spends. 

What Lobel, the Center, and ACORN all want courts to find in our Constitution is their private right to compel Congress to take money away from some taxpayers and to give that money to these activist groups and their employees. If there is a constitutional question of deprivation of property without due process of law, surely it is the expropriation of tax dollars by Congress from some citizens and the distribution of those tax dollars as political booty to other citizens. 

Congress and our federal court system has drifted so far away from the first intentions of our Founding Fathers of limited federal government that lawsuits seeking judicial injunctions against Congress to compel it to continue to fund corrupt private citizens can be seriously discussed. The more “elastic” the Constitution, the less secure the proper purposes of government. 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

rprew said:

Ignoring for a moment that ACORN funding was unconstitutional in the first place... ACORN is suing bases upon Congressional action being a bill of attainder. You can consider a bill of attainder to consist of four parts: indictment, trial, judgement, and punishment. ACORN is saying that there was no indictment, no trial, but judgement and punishment. What has happened is that there is NO bill of attainder here. Ask yourself, what is judicial punishment? Fines? Time in prison? Legal restrictions on action or movement? No one is going to prison. ACORN is not paying any fines. ACORN is still being permitted to carry on its normal operations. The only thing that has happened is that Congress has decided it didn't want to pay them anymore! If they wish to continue using their own funding, that is fine. There should be a grand jury convened to investigate and possible indict ACORN. This would be followed by a trial and judgement. Finally, there should be fines, possibly prison time for some officials. In the meantime, they should not be angry because they kept dropping their dimes down the storm sewer and daddy got tired of it and stopped giving them dimes.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 16, 2009
Votes: +3

DDW said:

	ACORN Should be defunded as quickly as possible and EVERY SINGLE OFFICER should be investigated AND indicted if necessary. I'm sick to death of seeing this nation looted by criminal trash.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 16, 2009
Votes: +3

Raymond B. Mitchell said:

Attorney Being a lawyer, I laughed my head off when I read this article!!!! Especially since I am a very conservative, Christian, Constitutional attorney graduating from Regent Univ. Law School, a Christian law school in Va. Bch. Virginia. What a bunch of ridiculous, wacky, dishonest lunatics at the Center for Constitutional Rights. That is why we elect Representatives in Congress, to decide how to spend our money/taxes they took from us, hopefully in a Constitutional, Biblical, and wise manner for the benefit of ALL taxpayers. Congress is supposed to be the "Judge, Jury, and Executioner" of the money they take from us by force. As the article stated, they are not a Court, they make laws and decide how to spend our money. Acorn has no right to our money. I am sure those lawyers will be laughed out of court right at the beginning (then again, remembering all the wackos and socialist God hating judges that have been in the federal court before, especially the US Supreme Court, maybe not). (Maybe they filed in a district with one of communist Obama's socialist judge appointees.) I laugh at the gall and arrogance of the liberal rebels against God at Acorn, the Center and other wicked organizations who actually think that a Court has the power to issue a restraining order against Congress!! What a bunch of nuts! Greedy, evil nuts I should say.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 18, 2009
Votes: +2

Dale F said:

Ignoring for a moment Thank you for clearing this up. I wasn't sure if they had something solid with this Bill of Attainder. I also came across the article, (Truthout, Acorn Sues, Nov 13). I am surprised the author of the article never relayed this fact. This is the basis of their law suit. I'm still not clear on the four points, first there would be an investigation, then indictment, trial, judgment and punishment. If found not guilty of fraud, they then would file the Bill of Attainder, this would force Congress to continue funding Acorn? As liberal as the courts can interpret, I could see this happening.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 21, 2009
Votes: +0

Still Free said:

Speaking of lawsuits ... And ignoring ACORN for a moment ... Unlike Mr. Mitchell above, I am not an attorney, but I do wonder if Americans who like their present healthcare (and who do not want the government version) could file a class action lawsuit for being denied freedom of choice. Anyone know? Mr. Mitchell, care to jump in? As for ACORN, they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar and they just can't stand being caught (and of course, losing all that money). As for Mr. Mitchell's comment "hopefully in a Constitutional, Biblical, and wise manner for the benefit of ALL taxpayers..." I sure hope I live to see the day we have more in Congress like that than the black-hearted, wicked group of pirates we have now.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 22, 2009
Votes: +0