Monday, March 15, 2010

Federal Judge Says Congress Cutting ACORN's Funding is Unconstitutional

Does this mean that organizations have a constitutional right to continued congressional funding; and by default tax payer money? Maybe not, but is seems now that congress has to jump through a few hoops and give 'acceptable' reasons to why they are cutting the funding. I will have to reread a copy of the constitution to see if I can find that particular provision.

"A federal judge who found it unconstitutional that Congress tried to cut funding to the activist group ACORN has rejected a government request to change her mind and has ordered government agencies to make it clear the funding isn't blocked.

In a written ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon made permanent her conclusion last year that the cutoff of funding was unconstitutional. She ordered all federal agencies to put the word out about it.

The Brooklyn judge said ACORN was punished by Congress without the enactment of administrative processes to decide if money had been handled inappropriately. She said the harm to ACORN's reputation continues because the government never rescinded its advice to withhold funding after it was distributed to "hundreds, if not thousands, of recipients."


  1. no of course not.

    This whole ACORN episode is manufactured and that funding was cut for ACORN is a disgrace.

    The Republican Party does not want working class poor minorities voting- the demographic trends are deadly for them- but that is what you get when you build a political coalition for the last 30odd years led by a country club aristocracy and focused on the social resentments and manufactured petty concerns (like ACORN) of rural and suburban whites.

    You end up with nothing left in your coalition but the same country club elite who have been leading us off a cliff and evangelical christians, like the rest who are of the talk-radio and fox news audience- vastly older, vastly whiter vastly rural.

    There's a relevant history of disenfranchisement in this country. Educate your self:

  2. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - cutting past your country club allegations to the Republican party and getting back to the point of the post; do you really think an activist group has a constitutional right to tax payer funding?

  3. That's what you think the point is because your being told that's what the point is. If you were honestly worried about who is getting tax payer funding, it wouldn't be ACORN worrying you. It would probably be Blackwater, KBR, or the other dozen or so contractors who control our government.

    And again, the whole point of this episode is that its a pretty illustrative example of how the history of disenfranchisement in America continues. It's not your fault, I don't think your a shyster, but your being distracted and taken for a ride if you are worried about ACORN.

  4. Cut past it if you want to, the american right-wing has been cutting past it since Lee Atwater, someone you may remember. You want to make it an issue of "constitutional right to tax payer funding" but of course in historical context this episode fits pretty neatly within the right-wing pattern of disenfranchisement.

    If you were really worried about what "group has a constitional right to tax payer funding", you'd be worried about KBR and Blackwater. You don't really seem to be interested or concerned with that though. So no i don't think they have a "right" any more or less then these people. As far as my life and the lives of the people around me is concerned I'd rather Acorn getting tax payer money though.


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow