Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why ACORN Won
On December 11, 2009, a federal judge ruled that Congress had unconstitutionally cut off all federal funds to ACORN. The judge issued an injunction stopping federal authorities from continuing to cut off past, present and future federal funds to the community organization.
ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and its allies in 75 cities will again have access to millions of federal dollars to counsel people facing foreclosure, seeking IRS tax refunds, and looking for affordable low cost housing. ACORN, which has received about $54 million in government grants since 1994, will be able to apply for new federal programs just like any other organization.
The court ruled that Congress violated the U.S. Constitution by singling out ACORN and its affiliates for severe sweeping restrictions and that such action constitutes illegal punishment or a bill of attainder.
What is a bill of attainder? Even most lawyers have no idea. Bills of attainder are acts of Congress which unilaterally punish an individual or organization. Essentially Congress acts as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
The U.S. Constitution has prohibited bills of attainder since 1787. U.S. founders objected to bills of attainder because in England, Parliament passed many such bills against political enemies, using them to throw people in prison and even execute them without trial.
Congress punished ACORN without even trying to figure out if any laws had been broken or allowing the 500,000 member organization to defend itself.
What about protecting the taxpayers against fraud? As the court pointed out, there are many legal ways for the government to investigate and terminate federal contractors which have been proven to engage in fraud or illegal activity.
But Congress did not want to wait for trials or proof or to allow ACORN due process.
Conservatives developed a voting majority and imposed punishment without a hearing or anything.
ACORN has been a target of right-wing politicians for years. Conservatives hate ACORN primarily because it registered over two million people to vote since 2003 and because it has an overwhelming African American, working class, Democratic-voting, membership.
Fox News is obsessed with ACORN. Google Fox News and ACORN and you will see over two million hits. Google Glenn Beck and ACORN and you get over a million hits, six hundred thousand for Rush, and three hundred thousand for Michelle Malkin.
Right wing members of Congress accused ACORN of being a shell game using millions of taxpayer dollars to advertise for a political candidate and which helped President Obama get elected.
After a highly dubious right-wing sting operation in September, the conservative media machine overran Congress members, including, sadly, many Democrats, and passed the bill of attainder cutting off all federal funds to ACORN and any affiliates, subsidiaries and allies.
Most Congress reps knew full well this was an illegal bill of attainder as it was pointed out in the debates and even by the Congressional Research Office, but voted to let it go through anyway. Representatives Nadler and Grayson and Senator Leahy, among others, repeatedly pointed out that this was unconstitutional. Democrats who voted for the bill of attainder included many who had sought and received help from ACORN members in the past. They have some explaining to do.
Progressives who remained silent while the nation's largest low income African American community organization was under attack also should re-think their lack of support. Did anyone think that if the right-wingers took down Van Jones and ACORN they would stop there?
What is ahead? Surely the conservative opponents of ACORN will continue to bloviate and continue to try to put ACORN out of business. There will likely be fights galore. But with this ruling the fights will be a little fairer.
ACORN won this case. The U.S. Supreme Court has called the prohibition of congressional bills of attainder a bulwark against tyranny. Here the bulwark against tyranny worked to stop the right-wing smear machine.
But the rule of law won too. And all of us and Congress have again been taught a valuable lesson there are no shortcuts when it comes to following the Constitution.
- Posted in
65 Comments so far
Show All"After a highly dubious right-wing sting operation "
Which after all, recorded ACORN employees behaving in a perfectly acceptable way.
Your right-wing cannot prove even one vote being cast illegally due to the work of Acorn yet this story received national attention for weeks if not months.
Yet when the right-wing, led by Karl Rove, engages in voter caging and there's physical evidence the "liberal" media suddenly goes dead silent.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594
I guess this means you have nothing to say about the recordings from the "smear campaign"? *shrug*
The solution to the recordings is to prosecute the people involved, not to condemn the entire organization. All of the major military contractors have been accused of fraudulent dealings with the government. Should we cut them off entirely, or prosecute those involved?
"The solution to the recordings is to prosecute the people involved, not to condemn the entire organization. "
Agreed, nor to naively assume that there is no systemic problem.
Or to naively assume that there is a systemic problem.
Why is it naive to assume that? Was ACORN naive when they overhauled some of their policies after the story broke? One *considers* all reasonable possibilities, or one is naive.
Or to ignore the problem of bill of attainder, as you have in all your characteristically moronic posts.
If ACORN should be denied funding because of sporadic venial sins among its local functionaries, the entire executive corps of Blackwater should be put before a firing squad.
You still haven't proven ONE illegally cast ballot due to ACORN.
I will now extend my time-frame to TEN YEARS.
Show any proof whatsoever of just ONE illegally cast vote due to ACORN (out of the over 1 Billion Votes cast) in Presidential elections over the past ten years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdNgMKPV9xQ&feature=player_embedded
"You still haven't proven ONE illegally cast ballot due to ACORN."
LOL! That's because I never *claimed* any illeagally cast ballots due to ACORN or anyone else! Not even one! Not even in the last TWENTY years! So why would you ask me to prove that in the first place, let alone extend your time-frame? LOL!
Google "strawman".
Thanks for admitting there's no evidence of even one illegal vote cast in the last ten years due to the work of ACORN.
Now watch the video I linked to and I'm sure you'll understand why I asked you that question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdNgMKPV9xQ&feature=player_embedded
Why do you ask people to prove claims they never made? Why do you say that someone admits something when they never even talked about that something?
Are you upset about something today?
"I'm sure you'll understand why I asked you that question."
I understabd that you "changed the subject" when you asked that question, and watching the video won't tell me why you would have done that. *shrug*.
I'm not the least bit concerned with your insipid questions or your motivations from bringing your right-wing talking points here.
On this website you will not control the discussion.
If you watch the video you'll understand why I asked you to prove even one ACORN assisted fraudulent vote.
If you still don't understand after watching the video then I suggest repeating grades K thru 6.
"your right-wing talking points here."
Are you saying those recordings show acceptable behaviour? I thought we all agreed it was not, regardless of left/right.
"On this website you will not control the discussion."
You are right, only the moderators can do that.
"If you watch the video you'll understand why I asked you to prove even one ACORN assisted fraudulent vote."
I've got a great idea: Find someone who thinks ACORN was involved in voter fraud and see if you cab get *them* to watch the video. What do you think?
I think you should go back to bed. Those straws that you need to grasp are in your dreams!
I think you need to pay more attention. I was asked to prove that ACORN engaged in voter fraud, a claim I never made.
So What? Please state your argument clearly.
The video recordings associated with the "smear" depict behaviour that is not acceptable. But you understood that all along from my very first post and didn't need any clarification.
Google shows over 320 flagged comments from you. You must be the troll of trolls here. Wow. Your life has meaning now.
Flagging a comment is so easy, a Caveman Troll can do it!
You figured out how to flag, I see.
And the point is if it's so easy to do, it really doesn't indicate anything about why someone is flagged. Indeed, it likely means that the flagger wants the post censored by common dreams because they are unprepared to argue with it directly.
jakenewton December 13th, 2009 12:06 pm -- I wish somebody who knows (you sound like you're speculating) would explain what flagging a comment means. I noticed that virtually all of mine are flagged, but don't know of any consequences. If it just means somebody doesn't agree, why not put little boxes next to comments showing how many readers have approved or objected, as they do in some other forums?
Each message has a "report this comment" link. If you think a message violates CDs posting policies, you can report it. If that goes through, the comment will show "flagged". As far as I can see, *anyone* can do this. Once the comment is flagged, ostensibly the moderators look at the post and decide whether to keep it or not. They can evidently remove the flag, as they have done here.
There was a post by "SEAGLASS" that I flagged for profanity, and the moderators deleted it.
I have no doubt that some people flag comments based only on the ideas expressed. I hardly ever flag comments, that I did in this thread is exceptional for me.
jakenewton December 14th, 2009 11:36 am -- Thanks. Evidently actually removing a post is rare. But how do we know that's been done?
You wouldn't know, unless you had seen it or someone had a cached copy of it before it was deleted.
jakenewton December 14th, 2009 3:21 pm -- I believe this was discussed several months ago, although possibly not with the term "flagged" being used, and I objected then as I do now: there ought to be some way for readers to review the flagged and removed comments. I would probably turn to them first before looking even at the articles and unflagged comments. That's because removal of comments would indicate a lot about the thinking of the people who control the forum. I can put up with profanity; if threats to commit crimes are flagged, or other sensitive information must be removed, I think the administrators owe it to the readers to excise only the parts they might be prosecuted for publishing and make the rest available so that readers can understand what happened.
" I think the administrators owe it to the readers to excise only the parts they might be prosecuted for publishing "
Your take is just one of many that may be reasonable. As I understand the policy there are not to be any personal attacks or profanity. In the end it's up to CD, it's *their* site and we are all guests with no rights whatsoever. I think a good moderation policy helps to keep the signal to noise ratio at a reasonable level, while allowing dissenting opinions as well.
Well it looks like the moderators have rightly fixed the flagging nonsense here. I don't think you understand what a troll is. It's not someone who simply disagrees with you.
An investigation into the videos found that they had been heavily edited, and the audio dubbed over. There is no way to tell what the ACORN employees were reacting to, no context whatsoever. The whole thing was a sham.
So they fired them anyway, and announced various reforms in the wake of the "sham".
The investigation found widespread management problems (and I would say idiotic employees), but no criminal wrongdoing.
That's how I understand it.
The "smear machine" may have been checked in this case but never doubt its overall effectiveness in determining the national discourse.
How many people in the US think Hugo Chavez is an oppressive dictator? It's not true...he is enormously popular among Venezuelan voters but he has used national resources to better the lives of ordinary people...establishing health clinics, schools, etc., using oil revenues. This takes away from the unearned income of the Venezuelan ruling class and they hate him for that.
And our rulers hate and fear him for setting such an example in "their" hemisphere so he has been relentlessly demonized.
Any movement that threatens the privilege and wealth of the plutocracy will be attacked by our media. They will use any means at their disposal, including unconstitutional bills like the one referenced in this piece to keep us down.
Michael Parenti calls it the gangster nature of the state.
I get the impression that jakewhatever knows how to press collective buttons here on CD. If he/she were trolling, he/she would change its login regularly. It's looking for attention. Don't feed it. It seems to need help.
I was only raising the question as to whether or not those recordings captured behaviour that was acceptable. If you think that is a quest for attention, you are entitled to feel that way. OTOH, this is a forum for *discussion*.
I fail to see how Acorn's present situation can be considered a wan for them.
They may get something already committed but they will be at the bottiom of the trough from now on and their reputation is in tatters.
This is winning?
ACORN's reputation is not "in tatters" due to the right-wing smear campaign. Those good people who have supported ACORN still do so and those reactionary fools who have hated ACORN still do so.
q
I'm sorry to disagree, but Acorn's reputation is most surely "in tatters" Ask the avg. Joe and he will tell you that.
Just like how everybody knows Al Gore is a liar...as a result of made up shit that is turned into propaganda by its opponents.
The average Joe, say, Joe the Plumber, is a jerk, and probably should not enjoy the franchise. If we listen with more than due respect to the average Joe, we're plunging toward the bottom, disdaining education and thinking the Flintstones is good science.
Agreed. If this is a win, it's a Pyrrhic one.
I believe ACORN acted properly. The economy, deliberately ruined by Republican fat-cats in order to depress the price of labor, will get so bad that hooking and pimping will be coveted jobs, and ACORN has always striven to help the working class. It's a good thing the U.S. has plenty of arable land, because we'll make fine stoop labor for our Indian and Chinese masters who actually value education.
"hooking and pimping will be coveted jobs"
Especially when involving young teenagers. :-P
Two things I've learned as the ACORN imbroglio has progressed: 1. I know a little bit more of what a bill of Attainder is, and 2. Where to go to donate to ACORN, a fine organization that helps the poor and downtrodden become more empowered. (Just google Acorn, and the website comes right up.)
This is a stark reminder that democracy is not a spectator sport. The separation of powers determined by the US Constitution is supposed to give us a system of "checks and balances" between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. However, balance of power can only be maintained if someone keeps checking on them. They have no apparent interest in checking on each other, so it's up to us. The job of the congress is to make law, not enforce it. Even if they have rock solid evidence that ACORN as an organization, or just a handful of its employees, are guilty of crimes, it's not their case to make. Thank you, Mr. Quigley and your colleagues at CCR, for keeping their feet to the fire and standing up for justice.
In other news, Obombem was too busy playing footsie with his white Wall Street pimps to lend a hand to help his fellow blacks who helped get him into the White House-- betrayal is something else, but payback is. . . We know what it is, Obombem, and you'll find out no later than November 2012, Now damn deal with it!
AD
Any organization made up principally of Afro Americans that proves to be effective is sure to be a target of the conservative right, not to mention the police and federal orginizations such as the FBI. Look at what happened to the Black Panthers. A large segment of white America is still scared shitless of any black group that shows any power whatsoever. Even white progressives are still stuck in the 'we will help the poor Nigras' syndrome. When will white America get it through its collective head that the reason why black people in this country are still a second class minority is because of bigotry. If you are black in America, you know full well the forces pushing and keeping you down. White people never feel these forces, so they must not exist.
Hey Jake -
The recordings were proven to be "edited" by the right wingers filming the stuff. That's why nobody has gone to court -- to prove anything-- and that's why the Congress decided to bypass due process -- and engaged in this despicable behavior that a judge has now ruled unconstitutional.
You don't know what really happened during those filming sessions with ACORN volunteers.
You, and even the people with ACORN who decided on disciplinary action against some of their employees, and most of the general public only know what the film makers wanted all of us to see and hear.
The video was edited to put ACORN in the worst possible light. It was not presented as evidence of what actually transpired -- when somebody dressed up like a hooker, and started asking leading questions of an ACORN employee.
And, there is no systemic problem, unless it is the tactics used by the right to try to discredit this organization.
Personal attacks, and smears, are used over and over and over again, by the lunatic fringe. It's systemic all right.
"The recordings were proven to be "edited""
Proven by who? Edited how exactly? Were there deletions? How could deletions somehow make what remained look acceptable?
"And, there is no systemic problem,"
Right, so the firings and policy changes were not needed anyway?