Discussing the issues and listening to other perspectives leads to greater understanding, whether we agree or not. The art of talking and listening is lost in today’s politics and we should take advantage of it when we can.

On this site we will treat each other with respect, congressman or not. Comments that don’t show the proper decorum will be deleted. The comment by Allan wasn’t overly egregious but it was getting close to the line.

Tony

Interesting, so you are essentially arguing that earmarks are unconstitutional. Is it then your position that you are are going to eschew earmarks for your district, or do your principles not reach quite this far ?

Thank you again.

Tony

Setting aside legal arguments, ACORN has clearly demonstrated it is much worse than a “politically unpopular organization.” Indeed, there have been systemic failures within the group and the nearly two dozen legal investigations into its activities demonstrate that – it goes way beyond the prostitution / child slavery seen in the recent videos. ACORN’s recent activities in the videos as well as during the last election cycle, ties to other questionable groups, the actions of its leaders and well documented past activities demand swift and immediate action.

No organization should be able to do these kinds of things and continue to recieve federal funds. If current federal laws are too lax in this area, we need to correct them. But it should not be done through congressional action against just one organization that at best suffers from rampant incompetence. If we have lax enforcement of federal contracts, let’s make sure we have real oversight and penalties for abuse.

Congressman Jared Polis

If Acorn has misused federal funds, they will have hefty penalties coming down.

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond – it is duly noted and appreciated.

Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”

Certainly I am not a Constitutional lawyer but the Internet is a great thing as you know and I did some research on how the courts have interpreted bills of attainder and find that Congressman Nadler’s statement is tenuous at best.

The bills of attainder clause was put in place mainly to guard against the singling out of an individual, mainly in terms of laws of treason. Something which the British Parliament was quite good at doing.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said that “a Bill of Attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both.” This was an expansion of the original intent but the case of ACORN does not seem to me to meet those standards. No legislation has been invalidated on this clause since 1965 despite the Court reviewing many cases based on this claim and the definition remains very narrow.

Most notably, the Court has specifically said that the withholding of non-contractual government benefits like financial aid is not punishment as defined by the clause (Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, 1984).

The federal government has the obligation – indeed the DUTY – to protect the PEOPLE’s money. To not do so the body would be derelict in their duty. The government picks and chooses what organizations it funds on a daily basis. Not funding ACORN is no different than Congress choosing not to fund the KKK or any other organization.

Setting aside legal arguments, ACORN has clearly demonstrated it is much worse than a “politically unpopular organization.” Indeed, there have been systemic failures within the group and the nearly two dozen legal investigations into its activities demonstrate that – it goes way beyond the prostitution / child slavery seen in the recent videos. ACORN’s recent activities in the videos as well as during the last election cycle, ties to other questionable groups, the actions of its leaders and well documented past activities demand swift and immediate action.

This is a case of a fight against corruption and the response it demands is clear.

I thank you again for responding – something many Congressmen sadly wouldn’t take the time to do.

Tony