ACORN sues the government for being defunded unconstitutionally– do they actually have a case?

  In the wake of the scandals that have come to light involving ACORN, congress moved to cut off additional funding for the group. ACORN is now suing to have their funding restored, claiming that congress’ actions were unconstitutional.

  My first thoughts when I read this were; this is ridiculous, and are you kidding me? But now I am not so sure that ACORN doesn’t have grounds to sue.

  While ACORN’s suit may seem outrageous at first glance, I think that the Supreme Court could actually rule in ACORN’s favor. ACORN is claiming that congress passed a bill of attainder to cut off their funding. A bill of attainder is any bill that targets an individual or group and imposes punishment without a trial.

 It certainly seems as though that is the case, ACORN was targeted by congress for crimes that they allegedly committed and defunded because of those crimes. If this is how the Supreme Court views it, than they could actually rule in ACORN’s favor, they could declare congress’ actions unconstitutional. The constitution strictly forbids congress passing any bill of attainder in Article 1 Section 9, and under this clause the Supreme Court could actually vote to re-institute ACORN’s funding.

 The question is, at least to me, does cutting off funds in an appropriations bill amount to punishment and a bill of attainder? Doesn’t the congress have the right to appropriate money?

  The constitution says, under Article 1 Section 7, that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, it makes no mention of how the money may be spent. While in Article 1 Section 8 congress is given the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

  I have made my feelings known about the abuses that I feel have been committed  under the “general welfare” clause. Congress has used this clause to implement various “social welfare” programs. I think that they have interpreted the “general welfare” clause in a manner that is at odds with the intent of the founders. But I am getting off topic, that is another debate altogether.

  If congress has the right to provide funding for the “general welfare” than doesn’t congress also have the right to stop funding a program if they so choose to do so in the name of the “general welfare”?

  That is what the Supreme Court debate will focus on. Did congress unconstitutionally pass a bill of attainder against ACORN or did they simply follow their constitutional right to provide for the “general welfare” of the United States in a manner that they thought was best?

  I really do think that this is what the argument boils down to and I think that is could go either way. If ACORN does manage to win this lawsuit can you imagine the legal ramifications and the precedent this will set? Will congress be hamstrung from ever cutting money out of an appropriations bill again? Won’t other agencies when faced with cuts of federal money line up and play the victim the way that ACORN has?

  There is nobody that wants to see ACORN defunded more than I do and there is nobody that wants to see ACORN disbanded more that I do, but I am not willing to go as far as Republican Representative Darrell Izza did when he characterized the constitution as “any mechanism available” being used by ACORN in their defense. The constitution is not merely “any mechanism available” it is the law of the land, it is THE mechanism. I get so tired of hearing these politicians marginalize the constitution when the constitutionallity of an issue doesn’t fit what they believe the constitution should say.

  ACORN may be a vile, corrupt, insidious organization and I hope that they get what they have coming to them, but if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is allowed to have constitutional rights, so should ACORN.