ACORN Nuts Sue Over Funding Cuts

“Every oak tree started out as a couple of nuts who decided to stand their ground.” It’s important to remember this saying when considering the federal lawsuit that ACORN has filed claiming that its federal funding cuts were unconstitutional. ACORN claims in its suit that Congress defunded it through an unconstitutional “bill of attainder”. ACORN relies on a dubious Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis that raises the question of whether Democrats are turning the nonpartisan CRS to partisan ends. Even worse, it appears that Americans must depend on Obama Attorney General Eric Holder to defend them.

The Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause prohibits passage of bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is a legislative act that declares a person or group guilty and punishes them without benefit of a trial. The Bill of Attainder Clause implements separation of powers.

A law may be a bill of attainder if it meets a two-pronged test, analyzing specificity (specifically identifies a person or a group of people) and punishment (traditional punishment or “functional punishment” with punitive intent). Traditional punishment includes deprivation of life, liberty, or property; and denial of employment. “Functional punishment” includes imposition of a legislative burden lacking a regulatory purpose, where there is evidence of the legislature’s punitive intent.

ACORN claims that Congress’ funding ban was a bill of attainder, relying on a dubious Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis. CRS analyst Kenneth R. Thomas concludes that the “specificity” test was met. But, he doesn’t conclude that the “punishment” test was met since “withholding of federal contracts or grants does not appear to be a ‘traditional’ punishment, nor does the legislative record so far appear to clearly evince an intent to punish”. The CRS acknowledges that ensuring federal funds are properly spent is a valid regulatory purpose, and concedes that courts will generally defer to Congress as to the regulatory purpose of a statute absent clear proof of punitive intent (proof he acknowledges is absent). Despite these legal shortcomings, he reaches the dubious conclusion that there may be sufficient basis to overturn the funding ban.

The CRS analysis raises the question of whether Democrats are turning the nonpartisan CRS to partisan ends. In a previous analysis, Mr. Thomas concluded that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor consistently upheld stare decisis – despite the fact that 60 percent of her decisions had been overturned. True, Mr. Thomas is a veteran constitutional lawyer (who rightly concluded the unconstitutionality of giving House representation to the District of Columbia). True, unanimous constitutional consensus is hard to find among lawyers, law professors, and judges. Yet, ACORN’s lawsuit and this dubious analysis seem nuts.

Even worse, it appears that Americans must depend on Obama Attorney General Eric Holder to defend their rights. We can rest assured that the ACORN nuts will stand their ground. But, Holder dropped voter intimidation charges against the Black Panthers in the case where paramilitary garbed Black Panthers brandished nightsticks and made racial threats at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. It seems that Republican Congressmen must intervene in the case, if possible.

About Rogue Elephant