This makes me ill...
Alison Roh Park / Center for Constitutional Rights: Historic Win for Constitutional Rights! Injunction Granted in CCR Lawsuit on Behalf of ACORN
Center for Constitutional Rights my ass.
December 11, 2009. New York, NY - Today, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon granted a preliminary injunction against the United States for unconstitutionally withholding funds from ACORN. In its decision, the court found that there is a likelihood the plaintiffs will be able to show that Congress’ targeted defunding of ACORN violates the Constitution’s prohibition against Bills of Attainder, legislative acts which single out a specific person or group for punishment. [...]
Good God Almighty. I wonder which version of the USC they considered?
[...] The Court’s ruling stated, “The plaintiffs have raised a fundamental issue of separation of powers. They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or administrative, process adjudicating guilt... The public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies...” [...]
Here's something everyone must read: FDR and the Supreme Court. The document is long and has quite a bit of the legalese lunacy but, there is some mention of the Constitution therein...
- The New Deal cases emphasize the position of supremacy which the Supreme Court occupies in the American constitutional system. Chief Justice Hughes is doubtless bored by the constant repetition of his epigram "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." It is a practical man's appraisal of the realities of the constitutional system under which we live. This judicial supremacy has arisen in part from the very nature of the judicial process of interpreting and applying the law, and it has been increased by the vagueness and generality of the constitutional clauses which have to be construed.
- If we are satisfied with the present system and its results we will naturally have no proposals to make. If we feel that the constitutional wreckage left by the New Deal decisions is due to the abuse of judicial power rather than to the inadequacy of the Constitution to modern needs, then we may logically demand some limitation on the power of the Supreme Court. We shall in this case need to be cautious to see that we do not create more problems than we solve. We may, however, feel that our present difficulties are due partly to an over-zealous extension of judicial power and partly to the failure of an 18th century Constitution to meet adequately the demands of the 20th century. In this case we may attempt to solve both problems by clarifying amendments to the Constitution. This will not only modernize the Constitution, but it will also narrow the field of judicial review by sharpening the vague clauses of the Constitution under which the Supreme Court is now engaged, almost of necessity, in the work of national policy determination.
- This plan might well be tried before anything is "done to" the Court, since it promises not only an immediate adjustment of the Constitution to the current of our present national life, but also a forced retirement of the Court from the fields of constitutional construction in which it faces the greatest difficulty and incurs the sharpest criticism.
That is at the very end of the document. Read the above several times and you will notice something very surreal; "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Really? Is that so?
For decades upon decades we have heard that the judges "ruled" this way when they didn't "rule" a bloody thing...they OPINED on an issue. At the top of every document it reads, "Under the Opinion of The Court" which isn't a "ruling", is it?
So, exuding from this particular case comes a fretting observance from a Layman of the USC: if the Congress under everyday ventures of constitutional thought, all things done by Congress is in fact constitutional, where does this judge see that the constitutional Congress IN ALL AREAS has committed anything unconstitutional? Does this make sense to anyone?
ACORN has violated many "rights" under the unconstitutionally constitutional Congress, got caught and now their stature under the unconstitutional congress has been rendered unconstitutional so they are hereby granted more unconstitutional "rights" under the very unconstitutional government for receiving unconstitutional payments?
Does anyone not see the vast ambiguities here?
It. Is. Time.
The Snooper Report. Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Judge Nina Gershon concluded that the ban amounted to a "bill of attainder" that unfairly singled out ACORN.
Permit me to quote a distinguished expert, namely my late father, Bill McCain:
"Boy, who ever told you life was gonna be fair?"
If it is indeed true that anything "unfair" is automatically deemed unconstitutional -- please Mr. Caterpillar, pass the hookah!