If this weren't such a serious constitutional issue, it would be funny. ACORN, the far left psuedo-criminal organization that has commited voter fraud and been taped doing many other illegal activites, used to receive federal funding until Congress wised up and put a stop to it. This was strictly a perrogative of Congress. They decide who gets federal money through the programs they author or the bills that they pass.
Once upon a time, they gave ACORN federal funds. However, due to ACORN's very public missteps, Congress passed a law banning their eligibility for funding, and the President signed it.
Fast forward to yesterday. U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon ruled that it was unconstitutional for Congress to single out a specific group to deny funding and reinstated their funding.
So, Congress, who constitutionally can decide who gets money and when, decided tnd then undecided that ACORN should get public money. Then, a federal judge decided that what was constitutionally permitted is unconstitutional. No checks and balances here, just an agenda.
Do you recall me mentioning that we have a constitutional crisis in this country? Forget all of the other issues in this country, this is the number one threat to our freedoms.
By the way, you did know that ACORN gets $100 from every home sold in this country on the HUD-1?
──
For more information on my coaching and educational programs and services, visit my website stevehoffacker.com or go to my other blog homesalesinsights.com for additional sales tips, insights, and commentary. You can also listen to my free podcast messages at Steve Hoffacker's Happenings.
© Steve Hoffacker, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
I am shocked that they get $100, but it doesn't surprise me. They need to pay for their criminal enterprise somehow.
Steve
It's very sad see what's going on in Washington, the Constitution is under attack and ACCORN is a nightmare.
ACCORN is receiving $100.00 per closing and that amounts to over $60,000,000 for the year of2009 sales levels a few years ago they were receiving over $100 million dollars a year of the Americans tax payers money. The question become should they be receiving the money and the answer is NO, stop the funding.
Good luck and success.
Lou Ludwig
I have seen so many scandals with Accorn over the past couple years that I cannot figure out why they would be getting federal bucks for anything.
Suzy,
Why should they benefit from our efforts? :)
Steve
Lou,
Thanks for your insights on this issue. It is way out of control. :)
Steve
Steve,
Corruption is quite well entrenched in national politics. :)
Steve
Steve, I heard this yesterday and can hardly believe it. Are our lawmakers just plain stupid or totally corrupt? Contracts in the business world can be broken for moral turpitude. It does not look like Tiger will come away unscathed by his departure - and the only people hurt by his transgression was his family. Acorn hurts every single American by their actions.
Steve, don't tell me you are one of of "them" that still believes the "Old" Constitution! {SARCASM INTENDED, TOO EARLY TO BE DRINKING!}
Steve - I was unaware of the $100 deal, where can I find information about it. In regard to the legislation being overturned, I do believe that it probably is the correct ruling under the constitution (no bill of attainder), unfortunately. Also, I think ACORN doesn't get a lot of money under legislation that is they are specifically mentioned in, although, it is written to make sure that they get it.
That being said, there are many other ways where ACORN could be defunded, it happens all the time by the gov't groups distributing the funding. That's the way that it should go. Or, congress could rewrite the legislation in such a way that any group that has been determined to encourage people to use their services to establish prostitution with underage women gets cut off, etc.
Bonnie,
ACORN has friends in the right places. Apparently that's all that's necessary. The Justice Deprtment could spend some serious time looking into this instead of badgering the Border Patrol, Navy Seals, and others trying to help our country. :)
Steve
Gary,
There is no clause in the Constitution which permits - or even implies - that we should update it and make it applicable to changing social conditions. It still means what it says - not what anyone wished it said or wants it to include. :)
Steve
Mike,
The bill of attainder might be a stretch. Taking away someone's funding that you granted in the first place seems more of a discretionary move than punitive. The Senate simply decided not to include them in the 2010 Appropriations Bill. They can do that. :)
Steve
You are correct Steve. Just a small Consitutional Crisis on our hands.
And people wonder why we are in the mess we are in. I believe Congress did this on purpose. I have long known the provision that states you can't legislate to a specific person or company. This was a lazy way to have the courts renew Acorn funding and try to luck good to the public. Political Science 101...
Have a glorious Sunday!
Paul
Kevin,
And no one in Washington seems to care. :)
Steve
Paul,
I don't see it this way. Congress has the power to commit public funds. They simply chose not to include ACORN is this year's funding. How is that legislating against them? They are still allowed to exist - though I don't know why. :)
Steve
Congratulations this post is now featured in the Silent Majority Group of Active Rain.
Nicholas,
Thank you. Appreciate the support. :)
Steve
Why is the federal government funding any non-profit group including ACORN ? Sounds like a clear violation of the 10th amendment to me.
Where in the constitution does it declare that ANYONE has the right to someone elses money! It doesn't.
Rob,
An even better question is why the federal government is funding any for-profit group like GM, AIG, Chrysler. No funding to anyone unless its a grant to help enact a piece of legislation - otherwise it's called pork. :)
Steve
Jon,
Exactly. Thanks. :)
Steve
Steve - I agree with Mike. I certainly agree with your sentiment, but as a matter of law, I might side with the Federal Judge.
I have not read the documents in the law suit and I am not specifically familiar with the bill you say was signed by the President to de-fund ACORN. But I might expect that the provision of Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution might apply: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." (Article 1 defines the powers of the Congress)
A bill of attainder is a law calling out a single group (ACORN) for punishment (loss of funding) without the benefit of a trial (due process). An ex post facto law is a bill that retroactively changes the way the law looks at a set of actions - after the actions were committed. Both restrictions possibly applicable to ACORN.
ACORN should never have received federal taxpayer funds, in my view. They are a blatantly partisan and political organization. But the means to prevent them from receiving funding in the future will need to be artfully drawn and other groups like ACORN should be effected as well.
Not that the Congress reads the Constitution anyway - you are right about that. I am assuming that ACORN applies for funding from broad programs that apply to community organizers generally. To exclude ACORN from programs by name where they meet the criteria of a program for similar groups would be questionable.
Rob's comment about the 10th Amendment indicates what may be the next big area of Supreme Court activity. Historically the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") has not been very actively cited by the Court and has not been preferred to the use of the various elastic clauses to expand the authority of the Congress (Commerce clause or Necessary and Proper clause for example). The current SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) might be ready to hear cases based upon 10th Amendment arguments. To me it is surprising that the Courts have accepted that one of the original Bill of Rights was included without specific intent and application.
Ted,
Thank you for your well laid out argument. I agree with your reasoning, but feel that this is not a punishmnet in the funding sense though that likely was behind the decision. I agree that it should never have been funded at all. Each year, the Congress determines who and what it will fund - including so many earmark and pork projects. Something funded this year that was not last year, and vice versa. This is how I interpret the ACORN funding in general. :)
Steve
Steve - I think our political culture is rotten and corrupt to the core to include both parties. All political action seems to be a response to the demands of special interests who provide political contributions to candidates. The longer the member is in office, the more entrenched the special interests are in his or her re-election plans. Money and power rule this country - not the Constitution.
So I am slow to condemn the community organizers and other groups that at least claim to give voice to elements of our society that do not have a voice. But what a lost opportunity ! What if ACORN were pushing for job training, education and jobs for their clients rather than government provided benefits and transfer payments - whose effect is fleeting, at best.
I look forward to the day ACORN is prosecuted under RICO laws (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts), along with some labor unions. Expect probably right after both parties stop pandering to the illegal immigrants for their votes. Not in my lifetime.
Another part of the problem - the best minds are not in government service... if they were they would have been hired away by business. (paraphrased from Ronald Reagan)
Ted,
Very true. Consider that every one of Obama's csars has never had a real job - never worked in business. Obama hasn't either. Then take all the House and Senate members with year and years of public service. It's not pretty. :)
Steve