NEW YORK – The U.S. government’s move this fall to cut off funding to ACORN was unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Friday, handing the embattled group a legal victory.
U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued the preliminary injunction against the government, saying it’s in the public’s interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.
ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress’ decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an individual organization.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
NEW YORK – The U.S. government’s move this fall to cut off funding to ACORN was unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Friday, handing the embattled group a legal victory.
U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued the preliminary injunction against the government, saying it’s in the public’s interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.
ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress’ decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an individual organization.
I for one am just thrilled at how Congress spends my tax dollars, giving money to thieves and thugs, scum and lib lowlifes.[/quote]
Ok, ok, ok. Help me out here folks, as I’m a bit slow. Redistributing our wealth to these activist groups, in the first place, constitutional? Cutting them off when they stink of corruption, unconstitutional?
I think you guys are missing out on the important role that underage prostitutes play in the US economy. These guys are just taking the concept of a stimulus package very literally.
Ok, ok, ok. Help me out here folks, as I’m a bit slow. Redistributing our wealth to these activist groups, in the first place, constitutional? Cutting them off when they stink of corruption, unconstitutional?
[/quote]
I may be off base, but this sounds like a form over substance issue, in that it probably should have been an executive decision to cut off funding to ACORN. Congress can pass laws saying any groups found guilty of misconduct shall not receive funds (in fact I’m willing to be there are plenty of these on the books) which would disqualify ACORN from receiving further funds. However as far as I know there has not been any such formal investigation to cut off their funds (which of course their should be).
Its somewhat akin to Congress singling out and taxing executives at AIG 90%.
They are all fucking each other, the phrase “Capitol Hill” just means the most regal orgy ever. Seriously, nothing but liars, thieves, and whores. They all pretend to hate each other, when they really are buddying it up when no one is looking.
Ok, ok, ok. Help me out here folks, as I’m a bit slow. Redistributing our wealth to these activist groups, in the first place, constitutional? Cutting them off when they stink of corruption, unconstitutional?
[/quote]
I may be off base, but this sounds like a form over substance issue, in that it probably should have been an executive decision to cut off funding to ACORN. Congress can pass laws saying any groups found guilty of misconduct shall not receive funds (in fact I’m willing to be there are plenty of these on the books) which would disqualify ACORN from receiving further funds. However as far as I know there has not been any such formal investigation to cut off their funds (which of course their should be).
Its somewhat akin to Congress singling out and taxing executives at AIG 90%.
Anyway someone correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]
You have it wrong. Taxing someone and taking tax payers dollars away from a group is two different things.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
They are all fucking each other, the phrase “Capitol Hill” just means the most regal orgy ever. Seriously, nothing but liars, thieves, and whores. They all pretend to hate each other, when they really are buddying it up when no one is looking. [/quote]