• 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 Department Says Acorn Can Be Paid for Pre-Ban Contracts

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.

A Housing and Urban Development Department lawyer asked the Justice Department whether the new law meant that pre-existing contracts with Acorn should be broken. And in a memorandum signed Oct. 23 and posted online this week, Mr. Barron said the government should continue to make payments to Acorn as required by such contracts.

The new law “should not be read as directing or authorizing HUD to breach a pre-existing binding contractual obligation to make payments to Acorn or its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations where doing so would give rise to contractual liability,” Mr. Barron wrote.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1259355860-u1P2DRmPrdFQwFuMP5+Gww

Funny isn't it, how Obama had no problem with making null and void contracts with companies taking TARP funds, ya know, breaching contracts with employees and the like. However, it appears ACORN is not subject to that same mentality.
 
I think this admin. has become comical at this point, I really didn't think we could get much worse, how very wrong I was.:shock:
 
As I recall, and correct me if I am wrong, but the voided contracts under TARP were between the firm taking bailout money and a third party unrelated to the government. Now, I'm a bit rusty in my business law, but when a firm gets bailout money, the bailout money is converted into some kind of security. Now, with the TARP much of that was in equity. And as most of us understand, equity in theory entitles one to some say.

Is TARP Really a TRAP? - BusinessWeek
The American Spectator : The TARP Trojan Horse

In section 5.3 of the agreement there is language that says if Congress wants to put new conditions or requirements on the banks, those new terms can be applied retroactively to banks who took the money.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is I can't find that. Section 5.3 does not say that.

Read The Bill: H.R. 384 - GovTrack.us

All it covers is the capacity to change mortgage rates. That's not exactly unilateral voiding of contracts. However, the FIRST TARP bill signed under Bush does have such language.

(c) Unenforceability of Certain Agreements- Section 13(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1823(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(11) UNENFORCEABILITY OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS- No provision contained in any existing or future standstill, confidentiality, or other agreement that, directly or indirectly--

‘(A) affects, restricts, or limits the ability of any person to offer to acquire or acquire,

‘(B) prohibits any person from offering to acquire or acquiring, or

‘(C) prohibits any person from using any previously disclosed information in connection with any such offer to acquire or acquisition of,

all or part of any insured depository institution, including any liabilities, assets, or interest therein, in connection with any transaction in which the Corporation exercises its authority under section 11 or 13, shall be enforceable against or impose any liability on such person, as such enforcement or liability shall be contrary to public policy.’.
Click to expand...

Read The Bill: H.R. 1424 [110th] - GovTrack.us

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...

Read The Bill: H.R. 3221 - GovTrack.us

That doesn't appear to be true based on section 602.

So based on the text of the law, you appear to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Do you really believe that? Seriously?
 
MrVicchio said:
Do you really believe that? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Do I believe what the text of statutory legislation defines what that legislation can and cannot do?

Seems like a stupid question to me.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but believing that laws state this or that when the text of that law does not, doesn't make you rational.

Now, in the text of the statutory legislation in question, there is no clause that allows for retroactive voiding of contracts. If you ever bothered to open links, you'd see that. In the first TARP bill, as I quoted does explicitly have clauses to void existing agreements. So your argument that Obama is being a hypocrite for voiding agreements of banks that took TARP money but not voiding ACORN previous funding is quite wrong on the basis of the text of statutory legislation.

But you are entirely free to believe that laws allow this or that despite having no such clauses.
 
The travesty was that ACORN was ever defunded in the first place. They do many communities across this nation a great service.
 
The Prof said:
especially the human smugglers and child prostitution pimps

VALUES
Click to expand...

There's no evidence of human smugglers or pimps working for ACORN.
They gave advice to anyone who went there.
 
especially the human smugglers and child prostitution pimps

VALUES
 
Last edited:
Neitzluber said:
There's no evidence of human smugglers or pimps working for ACORN.
Click to expand...

such a powerful point you make

the traffickers and perverts aren't employees

they're clients

LOL!

They gave advice to anyone who went there.
Click to expand...

well, how admirably even handed of them
 
formerroadie said:
The travesty was that ACORN was ever defunded in the first place. They do many communities across this nation a great service.
Click to expand...

Affordable housing. No doubt through government mandates and not by allowing the market to build more units. That's nothing more than favoritisim. :2sick1:

Better schools. No doubt through more money into failing schools and not by giving parents more choice. :2sick1:

Fair housing. No doubt to ensure that minorities that can't afford housing get into houses that are out of their price range. :2sick1:

Fair tax fees. I don't know much about this.

Foreclosures. They want people to live in houses that they can't afford because they were so overpriced. Not allowing housing prices to fall, that kind of contradicts affordable housing doesn't it? :2sick1:

Gulf coast recover. Because we should rebuild an area that is below sea level when we have plenty of other, safer land. :2sick1:

Health care. I've said enough about this. Bleh

Immigration. I probably agree with them here more than I disagree.

Living wage. Because your right to a wage that's arbitrarily determined to be high enough to live takes precedence over the person who can't be hired because his labor isn't worth that much. Bleh

Paid sick days. Because you should get paid for not working. Bleh

Predatory lending. Because a lender sticks a gun to your head and forces you to take out a loan. Bleh

Utilities. We're not running out of water. Bleh

Voter engagement. Because people who don't know the issues should vote anyway. Bleh
 
good call, Obama/justice department
acorn, as a federal contractor, is entitled to be paid for the work it has been contracted to perform
why would there be any reason not to find that a reasonable expectation
 
justabubba said:
good call, Obama/justice department
acorn, as a federal contractor, is entitled to be paid for the work it has been contracted to perform
why would there be any reason not to find that a reasonable expectation
Click to expand...

So were you against the Obama admin breaking the contracts fo the companies that got TARP and Bailout funding? Hmmm?
 
MrVicchio said:
Nope, I'm just making it up. Never happened. :roll:
Click to expand...

I wasn't accusing you of anything. I just don't remember any action being taken. There was all the outrage when people were kicking around the idea, then I never heard anything about it again. Did the contracts actually get broken in the end?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I wasn't accusing you of anything. I just don't remember any action being taken. There was all the outrage when people were kicking around the idea, then I never heard anything about it again. Did the contracts actually get broken in the end?
Click to expand...

Yes. Most of it had to do with Bonuses and the like.
 
wow, apologists for enablers of child prostitution and human smuggling

it's just i never thought i'd ever see the like IN CONGRESS
 
MrVicchio said:
So were you against the Obama admin breaking the contracts fo the companies that got TARP and Bailout funding? Hmmm?
Click to expand...

i was very much opposed to the bailout
it was a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the rich, to replenish, to socialize their huge losses

but you seem confused ... that inept bailout was approved by dubya - prior to the election
 
justabubba said:
i was very much opposed to the bailout
it was a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the rich, to replenish, to socialize their huge losses

but you seem confused ... that inept bailout was approved by dubya - prior to the election
Click to expand...

You seemed more confused. The Government AFTER Bush, nullified contracts companies had with Employees to appease Obama's far left fringe. Nice attempt to deflect the issue.
 
MrVicchio said:
You seemed more confused. The Government AFTER Bush, nullified contracts companies had with Employees to appease Obama's far left fringe. Nice attempt to deflect the issue.
Click to expand...

Which you seem to be ignoring was legislated under Bush. Technically, Obama cannot void existing contracts under the 2nd TARP legislation. He can only do so under the first TARP legislation which as I pointed out and you seem hell bent on ignoring, was signed by Bush. Furthermore, you seem to be again hell bent on ignoring how the Acorn bill does not have the language you claimed it did.

Just because the literal text of the bills does not conform to your view doesn't make the bills says whatever you want them to.
 
MrVicchio said:
You seemed more confused. The Government AFTER Bush, nullified contracts companies had with Employees to appease Obama's far left fringe. Nice attempt to deflect the issue.
Click to expand...

no. i insist; it is you, who remains confused. you asked the question ... highlighted in my reply above ... about the bailout
if there was deflection, it was at your elicitation

and the OP is about the withholding of federal dollars from acorn - and the justice department's determination that estoppel is effective only for any contract awards committed after the anti-acorn legislation was passed. the federal contracting officers now have legal authority, bith under the justice clarification as well as the federal acquisition regulations to pay the contractor for goods/services received

but you have yet to explain to us why that finding is found unreasonable
 
The Prof said:
especially the human smugglers and child prostitution pimps

VALUES
Click to expand...

You mean companies like Dyncorp who were twice busted running a prostitution ring but still receive millions from our government because they're a military contractor. Some values.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom