Not Just Me…
I was told I was crazy and had no clue as to what I was talking about when I said Congress’ efforts to deny funding to ACORN for its activities might be unconstitutional because the body could be passing a bill of attainder.
Well apparently I’m not alone in this assessment. The Congressional Research Office has apparently reached the same conclusion.
I’m not an ACORN fan and the sooner the organization goes away the better, but you can’t make that happen by breaking the law or violating the Constitution.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
So if it is learned by our esteemed members of Congress that government tax dollars are funding a criminal enterprise, then they can't cut funding? Or could the constitutional dilemma have been avoided by not naming ACORN specifically but rather writing the law in general terms, applying to any criminal enterprise? If so, there's an easy solution. Write another law and this time get it right.
September 28th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
It's just like when California was trying to change their laws about pension so OJ Simpson would be forced to pay the civil lawsuit. Now, if Congress described specific actions that not-for-profits that receive federal funding can't do, or ban federal-funding for all not-for-profits similar to ACORN, that's fine.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
They can cut funding without passing a law at all. Or, they can write a law that doesn't single out Acorn. Either solution would work.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
When it comes to federal “judges” the throw away part of your argument is, “….could be intrepreted…” which is what idiot federal judges have been doing for decades now. As I have pointed out in prior post, Congress is doing a cya for OBAMA and for themselves. Obama and ACORN go back a long ways together and dollars for ACORN has been a congressional pastime. As far as the rule of law goes, it is noted in the WSJ of today that each of us now commits three felonies a day without even knowing it. “Law” has become a bad joke. I assume the bills will be reconciled and then sent over for Barry's signature, without which, of course, what Congess has done will not become “law”. Throwing ACORN under the bus will be Chicago Easy just like the Rev Wright discovered after decades of his instruction of the Obama's in higher morality.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
You don't commit a felony without knowing it. To commit a felony there has to be intent. If there is no intent, there is no felony.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
At what point did you learn in law school that ignorance of a law is grounds for reducing charges? Of course it could be a mitigating factor. But wouldn't that be a matter of prosecutorial discretion?
September 28th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
The part that says to have certain crimes, particularly felonies, you need a mens rea and and actus rea. Go make yourself useful and look it up.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Congress is not a court of law.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Still not a bill of attainder. Apparently there are some real doofusses (doofi?) in the congressional research department. They might be able to look something up, but apparently nobody in that department has a law degree. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself: {Cummings v. Missouri, 71 US 277 (1867), U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49 (1956), or U.S. v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946)}
What congress dis is so not even close to being a bill of attainder it is laughable, and hey, I'm laughing now. At you. And the conressional reseach department.
I'd expect this kinda tripe fro Beck or Savage, but you? This statement makes you look like a “birther,” “tea-bagger” or 9/11 conspiracy theorist. You're usually a rational thinker, but just sayin.'
Really, look it up.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Oops, change an “s” to a “d” and add an “m” in my previous missive. Anywhere would be fine.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Abdul you know that is not always true. If one were to have sexual relations with someone underage, not even intending to have sex with a minor, he/she is guilty of a felony.
That person might even be scrupulous in not meaning to have sex with a minor. Even if they check ID, ask others about the age of the intended partner and otherwise confirm that the intended partner is of legal age, it is still a felony in every state of the union. That person might have been shown a fake ID and lied to, no matter. No mens rea to violate a minor, yet guilty as charged. The only intent was to have sex with an adult, but if it turns out that it was a minor the only hope for a defendant in such a case is jury nullification. And our legal system won't allow an attorney to inform a jury about this option.
You're a lawyer and you make these kinda blanket statements? Gotta wonder.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Why, Malercous, in Indiana one may rape as many children as he desires if the evidence for same is buried in Planned Parenthood files. According to Indiana judges, the privacy rights of the child shield the predator. I suppose the Indiana Legislators could “fix” this loophole but, to my knowledge, they haven't. Indiana citizens, through their previous AG, wound up paying Planned Parenthood's large legal fees incurred defending child predators.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:14 am
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB200014240527487... Things have moved along, Abdul, since your incomplete legal education. Of course, you may still be correct for Indiana, since Indiana often chooses to remain far back in the pack.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:34 am
What's wrong with this correction?
View Responses Share Post PrintSeptember 29, 2009 Posted by Scott at 6:08 AM
In their September 18 story on the exposure of ACORN by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, Washington Post reporters Darryl Fears and Carol Leonnig fabricated the existence of a quote indicating the existence of a racial animus behind O'Keefe's work. When called on to supply the quote, the Post instead ran this correction:
Th[e] article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.
What's wrong with this correction (and the related AP correction)? Gary Larson (not the cartoonist) explicates the text in “Washington Post admits to bogus quote.” Larson's column provides a disgusting footnote to a disgusting story.
Pascal's comment is that journalists lie. Most of their lies don't catch up with them. Source:Powerline.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:37 am
What's wrong with this correction?
View Responses Share Post PrintSeptember 29, 2009 Posted by Scott at 6:08 AM
In their September 18 story on the exposure of ACORN by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, Washington Post reporters Darryl Fears and Carol Leonnig fabricated the existence of a quote indicating the existence of a racial animus behind O'Keefe's work. When called on to supply the quote, the Post instead ran this correction:
Th[e] article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.
What's wrong with this correction (and the related AP correction)? Gary Larson (not the cartoonist) explicates the text in “Washington Post admits to bogus quote.” Larson's column provides a disgusting footnote to a disgusting story.
Pascal's comment is that journalists lie. Most of their lies don't catch up with them. Source:Powerline.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:37 am
What's wrong with this correction?
View Responses Share Post PrintSeptember 29, 2009 Posted by Scott at 6:08 AM
In their September 18 story on the exposure of ACORN by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, Washington Post reporters Darryl Fears and Carol Leonnig fabricated the existence of a quote indicating the existence of a racial animus behind O'Keefe's work. When called on to supply the quote, the Post instead ran this correction:
Th[e] article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.
What's wrong with this correction (and the related AP correction)? Gary Larson (not the cartoonist) explicates the text in “Washington Post admits to bogus quote.” Larson's column provides a disgusting footnote to a disgusting story.
Pascal's comment is that journalists lie. Most of their lies don't catch up with them. Source:Powerline.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:37 am
What's wrong with this correction?
View Responses Share Post PrintSeptember 29, 2009 Posted by Scott at 6:08 AM
In their September 18 story on the exposure of ACORN by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, Washington Post reporters Darryl Fears and Carol Leonnig fabricated the existence of a quote indicating the existence of a racial animus behind O'Keefe's work. When called on to supply the quote, the Post instead ran this correction:
Th[e] article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.
What's wrong with this correction (and the related AP correction)? Gary Larson (not the cartoonist) explicates the text in “Washington Post admits to bogus quote.” Larson's column provides a disgusting footnote to a disgusting story.
Pascal's comment is that journalists lie. Most of their lies don't catch up with them. Source:Powerline.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:37 am
What's wrong with this correction?
View Responses Share Post PrintSeptember 29, 2009 Posted by Scott at 6:08 AM
In their September 18 story on the exposure of ACORN by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, Washington Post reporters Darryl Fears and Carol Leonnig fabricated the existence of a quote indicating the existence of a racial animus behind O'Keefe's work. When called on to supply the quote, the Post instead ran this correction:
Th[e] article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.
What's wrong with this correction (and the related AP correction)? Gary Larson (not the cartoonist) explicates the text in “Washington Post admits to bogus quote.” Larson's column provides a disgusting footnote to a disgusting story.
Pascal's comment is that journalists lie. Most of their lies don't catch up with them. Source:Powerline.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:37 am
What's wrong with this correction?
View Responses Share Post PrintSeptember 29, 2009 Posted by Scott at 6:08 AM
In their September 18 story on the exposure of ACORN by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, Washington Post reporters Darryl Fears and Carol Leonnig fabricated the existence of a quote indicating the existence of a racial animus behind O'Keefe's work. When called on to supply the quote, the Post instead ran this correction:
Th[e] article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.
What's wrong with this correction (and the related AP correction)? Gary Larson (not the cartoonist) explicates the text in “Washington Post admits to bogus quote.” Larson's column provides a disgusting footnote to a disgusting story.
Pascal's comment is that journalists lie. Most of their lies don't catch up with them. Source:Powerline.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:37 am
What's wrong with this correction?
View Responses Share Post PrintSeptember 29, 2009 Posted by Scott at 6:08 AM
In their September 18 story on the exposure of ACORN by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, Washington Post reporters Darryl Fears and Carol Leonnig fabricated the existence of a quote indicating the existence of a racial animus behind O'Keefe's work. When called on to supply the quote, the Post instead ran this correction:
Th[e] article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.
What's wrong with this correction (and the related AP correction)? Gary Larson (not the cartoonist) explicates the text in “Washington Post admits to bogus quote.” Larson's column provides a disgusting footnote to a disgusting story.
Pascal's comment is that journalists lie. Most of their lies don't catch up with them. Source:Powerline.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:37 am
What's wrong with this correction?
View Responses Share Post PrintSeptember 29, 2009 Posted by Scott at 6:08 AM
In their September 18 story on the exposure of ACORN by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, Washington Post reporters Darryl Fears and Carol Leonnig fabricated the existence of a quote indicating the existence of a racial animus behind O'Keefe's work. When called on to supply the quote, the Post instead ran this correction:
Th[e] article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.
What's wrong with this correction (and the related AP correction)? Gary Larson (not the cartoonist) explicates the text in “Washington Post admits to bogus quote.” Larson's column provides a disgusting footnote to a disgusting story.
Pascal's comment is that journalists lie. Most of their lies don't catch up with them. Source:Powerline.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I guess I don't know how to post correctly and since I know comments can be deleted how about erasing all those duplicates? Meanwhile, http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/28/acorns... This is where Abdul's attainder theory arose. Arm in arm with Jerry Nadler! Wow.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Just remember that both houses of Congress are filled with rummies and dummies or as a wit once remarked the first group of organized criminals. It is their own A for the CYA effort. The smart procedure would have been to end their 501C3 status followed by an investigation (wherein the democrats would investigate themselves). It wouldn't take long for them to deal with ACORN's misuse of tax dollars.
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:22 am
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/01/its-on-cali... Could this be the first democrat to investigate Acorn? And, did Acorn ever aid any republicans? Is voter fraud an exclusive democrat thing?
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/01/its-on-cali... Could this be the first democrat to investigate Acorn? And, did Acorn ever aid any republicans? Is voter fraud an exclusive democrat thing?