You've got to say one thing about Acorn: it has
chutzpah. After all, these are the folks who once sued to
avoid paying the minimum wage to their own workers. These
are the people who turned the Community Reinvestment Act into a
classic shakedown operation, scoring numerous corporate pay-offs
in order to lift Acorn's objections to bank mergers. And,
of course, these are the activists who freely
dispensed advice on how to run brothels with underage, illegal
immigrants while concealing the proceeds.
Still, they are upset that Congress cut off their money. I
mean, who doesn't get a government check these days!? How
insulting!
Not only is it insulting, it's unconstitutional!!
Reports the New York Times:
The antipoverty group Acorn filed a lawsuit
against the federal government on Thursday, saying that the
House violated the Constitution by passing a resolution barring the group
from receiving federal aid.
In the lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in
Brooklyn, Acorn asks that its federal financing be restored.
The suit says that the House resolution constitutes a "bill of
attainder," or a legislative determination of guilt without a
trial. Acorn, which came under fire after a series of
embarrassing scandals, says it was penalized by Congress
"without an investigation" and has been forced to cut programs
that counsel struggling homeowners and to lay off workers.
For example, it said, because of budget cutbacks, a class for
first-time homebuyers in New York that enrolled 100 people in
September enrolled only 7 in October, after the Congressional
action.
"It's a classic trial by the legislature," said Jules Lobel, a
lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights,
which brought the suit. "They have essentially determined the
guilt of the organization and any organization affiliated or
allied with it."
The argument really is too silly to refute. Once it votes
money, Congress isn't allowed to defund any organization in the
future until, what, a full-scale trial? Or does that
principle apply only if the organization has misused the
cash? In contrast, the Red Cross could be defunded tomorrow
because it hasn't gone around advising would-be pimps and
prostitutes? Or does this rule apply only to left-wing
groups whose misdeeds were caught on tape?
Although the lawsuit shouldn't be taken seriously, today the
Constitution only has the vaguest relevance to the operation
of the U.S. government. So who knows how a judge will
rule. And if it goes up to the Supreme Court
and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the result might depend upon
with whom she empathizes on a particular day.
