• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Dept. Says Acorn Can Be Paid

Councilman

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,657
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1259355860-u1P2DRmPrdFQwFuMP5+Gww

And here I thought only our opinions didn't matter to Obama. This guy is so arrogant that he and his disciples will ignore laws he's signed.

My question is did that Bill say future funding or just funding?

I pretty much expected something like this. Obama has to get his way and nothing wil get in his way.

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: November 27, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group.

The department’s conclusion, laid out in a recently disclosed five-page memorandum from David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, adds a new wrinkle to a sharp political debate over the antipoverty group’s activities and recent efforts to distance the government from it.

Since 1994, Acorn, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.

But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer money — including money authorized by previous legislation — could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.
Click to expand...
 
It may be a legal requirement under govt contract law.
 
Councilman said:
Obama has to get his way and nothing wil get in his way.
Click to expand...

the american people will, my friend

his entire agenda is already dead

it's cuz moves like this just kill him, politically

as for the legalities, i'm no professional constitutionalist...

but the POLITICS of it...

that is, if mister AG has to weigh in, it sounds like a matter of some dispute

and mister AG would not, then, be the final word

the admin is once more, as always, on the extreme opposite side of the american people

perhaps you and i should not let these things bother us so much, he's hurting himself a lot more than he is our values

the phenomenon that showed its blood red face in VA and NJ is getting even hotter

patience

when it comes to acorn, everyone knows
 
American said:
It may be a legal requirement under govt contract law.
Click to expand...

Every government contract I ever saw had a clause that allowed to government to void the contract on account of fraud/wrong doing.
 
Obama will do anything to protect his main voter getter organizations. It seems ACORN is important enough for Obama to protect even though it could cost him greatly politically.
 
acorn couldn't make a dent in VA or NJ

and the red wave is a lot taller now even than nov 3

he's done ksm since then

he's continued to screw up totally afghanistan

the war against the fed has been joined by the congressional black caucus

climategate's taken over the headlines and he's going to copenhagen for a day

his disastrous trip to asia where he had no goals, got no results and allowed himself to be used as a prop in hu's carefully choreographed stageplay

mammograms and cervical cancer

the deficit has overtaken health care as the number one domestic issue for the media

geithner and holder bombed on capitol hill

the party has surrendered cap and trade

he's being criticized for concentrating all his efforts on social reforms like health care and global warming while doing nothing about the economy or jobs

everyone's talking about the bailouts of the megacorps, their losses picked up by taxpayers while their profits end up in overplump pockets

that's the left, right and center jumping on obama

and he's about to ESCALATE in afghanistan

acorn can't do squat in the face of all that

so, once more, he fails to distance himself from a hated idea, acorn, which has no chance of accomplishing anything for him anyway

the most incompetent politician at the national level america has ever produced
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
the american people will, my friend

his entire agenda is already dead

it's cuz moves like this just kill him, politically

as for the legalities, i'm no professional constitutionalist...

but the POLITICS of it...

that is, if mister AG has to weigh in, it sounds like a matter of some dispute

and mister AG would not, then, be the final word

the admin is once more, as always, on the extreme opposite side of the american people

perhaps you and i should not let these things bother us so much, he's hurting himself a lot more than he is our values

the phenomenon that showed its blood red face in VA and NJ is getting even hotter

patience

when it comes to acorn, everyone knows
Click to expand...


Santa make that big old boogieman go away. :rofl
 
American said:
It may be a legal requirement under govt contract law.
Click to expand...

The same laws they ignored with the TARP bailout crap they pulled, making companies change or void contracts, things that were not part of the original deal with DC?
 
Councilman said:
I was of the under the impression a new law can supersede and replace or alter any old one.
Click to expand...

No. Unless there is a clause that explicitly allows retroactive application of existing contracts, you can't do it. See the linked post to links directly to the text of that bill. There's no retroactive clause. Kind of stupid if you ask me. If they were really out to get them, they would have put such a clause in.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...nt-says-acorn-can-paid-pre-ban-contracts.html
 
donc said:
Santa make that big old boogieman go away. :rofl
Click to expand...

2010 and 2012 will take care of our problems.

(caught 10, kept 2 over 15) :mrgreen:
 
MrVicchio said:
The same laws they ignored with the TARP bailout crap they pulled, making companies change or void contracts, things that were not part of the original deal with DC?
Click to expand...

Merely because the text of the statutory legislation does not fit your extreme partisan bias does not make you correct.

We already went over this. You are choosing again to believe that your opinion supersedes the factual and literal text of the laws in question.

Reading the actual written text of the statutory legislation does not result in the conclusion you have come to.

I already explained to you the first TARP Bill has explicit language to void existing contracts. I then cited you the link to the Defund Acorn Amendment which does not have such language.

Stop pretending that the actual written text of the statutory legislation fits your view when it does not.
 
donc said:
Santa make that big old boogieman go away. :rofl
Click to expand...

good comeback

baby talk

meanwhile, the AG who can't answer committee's simple question of precedent concerning ksm, now twists out some tortured interpretation to continue taxpayer establishment of child prostitution brothels for illegal aliens

while acorn destroys documents on the front pages of the msm

real smart

this guy has no VALUES

obama, i mean
 
obvious Child said:
Merely because the text of the statutory legislation does not fit your extreme partisan bias does not make you correct.

We already went over this. You are choosing again to believe that your opinion supersedes the factual and literal text of the laws in question.

Reading the actual written text of the statutory legislation does not result in the conclusion you have come to.

I already explained to you the first TARP Bill has explicit language to void existing contracts. I then cited you the link to the Defund Acorn Amendment which does not have such language.

Stop pretending that the actual written text of the statutory legislation fits your view when it does not.
Click to expand...

Which of course was unconstututional....

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Attainder
attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: AHD

In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.
Click to expand...

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Bringing up an unconstitutional law as justification for your argument usually isn't a good Idea. :doh
 
Crunch said:
Which of course was unconstututional.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Actually if you read up on Bill of Attainders, the Defund Acorn is technically unconstitutional as Bill of Attainders are forbidden in the Constitution. The TARP however doesn't qualify as a Bill of Attainder. Equity owners have some say in CEO compensation. Further, nothing prevents individual contracts for bailout money not written into the bill from limiting pay.

The extra tax however on bonuses from tarp recipients would be unconstitutional.

Like H.R. 1586
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Hmmm. Actually if you read up on Bill of Attainders, the Defund Acorn is technically unconstitutional as Bill of Attainders are forbidden in the Constitution. The TARP however doesn't qualify as a Bill of Attainder. Equity owners have some say in CEO compensation. Further, nothing prevents individual contracts for bailout money not written into the bill from limiting pay.
Click to expand...

You'll have to show me in the constitution where the government has the power to become an "equity owner” of any privately, or publicly held company.... good luck with that.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


As for Acorn, I haven't read the bill to defund them.... but it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't call Acorn out specifically, but said something about organizations that were under a fraud investigation, or had been convicted yadda, yadda ,yadda.
 
Crunch said:
You'll have to show me in the constitution where the government has the power to become an "equity owner” of any privately, or publicly held company.... good luck with that.
Click to expand...

So you believe that everything explicitly not stated in the document is unconstitutional?

Show me in the constitution where the government doesn't have the power to become an "equity owner” of any privately, or publicly held company.... good luck with that. :2wave:

By the way, you do realize that government pension funds are some of the largest equity holders in public firms and private equity?

As for Acorn, I haven't read the bill to defund them.... but it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't call Acorn out specifically, but said something about organizations that were under a fraud investigation, or had been convicted yadda, yadda ,yadda.
Click to expand...

See the link I posted. Section 603 I believe.

They do call out Acorn in the bill. That is pretty much a textbook case of a bill of attainder.
 
donc said:
Santa make that big old boogieman go away. :rofl
Click to expand...

Some peoples inability to see clearly eyes glazed over having once had a drink from the Obama Kool Aid Chalice makes possible the mocking of others.
Failure to see what is going on is a credit to Obama's only talent that has been shown so far. That being his ability to lie and convince the mentally challenged of his sincerity, while all the time saying one thing and doing another. Even the blind with half a brain can see this.
 
Crunch said:
2010 and 2012 will take care of our problems.

(caught 10, kept 2 over 15) :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I kinda like jumping in a pull the profs chain every now and then.:mrgreen:
 
I feel sorry for those poor people working for acorn, they are used time and again, and then thrown away when the crap hits the fan. Follow the money, this group is not about the poor, but the powerful elite, and it is criminal!
 
donc said:
I kinda like jumping in a pull the profs chain every now and then.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

a pull the prof's chain?

by talking baby talk?

LOL!
 
The Prof said:
a pull the prof's chain?

by talking baby talk?

LOL!
Click to expand...

What say prof, should the contract be broken? Should the government be like the infamous REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA? Where they said that Congress should abide to all the laws that the rest of the country has to abide to?


How about this laugher, or in prof talk LOL,LOL, term limits for Congressmen and Senators;Hee,hee. I believe the legacy of corruption of, well, Tom (slew foot) DeLay and Jack(casino)Abramoff, just to name a few should bar any Republicans (who have some how seen the light of fiscal responsibility of late) getting control of anything on a national level for the foreseeable future. :2wave:
 
Good. I hope they revoke the ACORN funding law or apply it to all contracts. It's obvious people were duped into believing something was wrong due to the actions of 3 or so people. The right wing fears the poor. If they are educated on their rights and given a chance to speak, they right wing knows they haven't a chance. I, for one, will be helping ACORN and supporting them financially for many years to come.
 
formerroadie said:
Good. I hope they revoke the ACORN funding law or apply it to all contracts. It's obvious people were duped into believing something was wrong due to the actions of 3 or so people. The right wing fears the poor. If they are educated on their rights and given a chance to speak, they right wing knows they haven't a chance. I, for one, will be helping ACORN and supporting them financially for many years to come.
Click to expand...

Liberals who presume to think for or know what Conservatives think or believe elevate themselves to a level they fail to occupy in real life. That being someone who can think.
The false claim that Conservatives fear the poor is another attempt to take the focus off of the facts that ACORN is a proven corrupt organization and its champion in the White House does give a damn because they use their corrupt practices to support his failing policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom