Another look at defunding ACORN

Liberal United States District Court Judge Nina Gershon issued a preliminary injunction blocking Congress from defunding ACORN. (Judge Gershon hails originally from Chicago, by the bye.)

 

ACORN claims it would be an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder for Congress to defund the organization.

 

Hans von Spakovsky at Heritage Foundation disagrees.

 

Judge Gershon’s decision is preliminary, but still doesn’t appear to accomplish what the Bill of Attainder provision was meant to do. Nevertheless, I’m generally in favor of more judges blocking acts of Congress when they are in fact unconstitutional (which is not judicial activism). If we had more judges doing that, maybe the Constitution wouldn’t be in the pickle described by Thomas Woods and Kevin Gutzman in Who Killed the Constitution: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama.

 

Many liberals, such as the AFL-CIO and very “green” Rhode Island State Representative David Segal, are cheering the decision by Judge Gershon.

 

Liberals, it seems, do believe in constitutional limits on congressional power, albeit, only when the limit on power works to their advantage. If Congress may not constitutionally stop taxpayer dollars going to a corrupt organization, I’m glad it’s liberals making that particular constitutional argument.

 

As long as liberals are being persnickety about constitutional authority, perhaps they can explain where in the Constitution Congress, or the federal government generally, has the enumerated power to fund ACORN.

 

The question is: will Republicans use this ruling as incentive to work towards not funding leftwing causes with taxpayer dollars in the first place?

Liberal United States District Court Judge Nina Gershon issued a preliminary injunction blocking Congress from defunding ACORN. (Judge Gershon hails originally from Chicago, by the bye.)

 

ACORN claims it would be an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder for Congress to defund the organization.

 

Hans von Spakovsky at Heritage Foundation disagrees.

 

Judge Gershon’s decision is preliminary, but still doesn’t appear to accomplish what the Bill of Attainder provision was meant to do. Nevertheless, I’m generally in favor of more judges blocking acts of Congress when they are in fact unconstitutional (which is not judicial activism). If we had more judges doing that, maybe the Constitution wouldn’t be in the pickle described by Thomas Woods and Kevin Gutzman in Who Killed the Constitution: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama.

 

Many liberals, such as the AFL-CIO and very “green” Rhode Island State Representative David Segal, are cheering the decision by Judge Gershon.

 

Liberals, it seems, do believe in constitutional limits on congressional power, albeit, only when the limit on power works to their advantage. If Congress may not constitutionally stop taxpayer dollars going to a corrupt organization, I’m glad it’s liberals making that particular constitutional argument.

 

As long as liberals are being persnickety about constitutional authority, perhaps they can explain where in the Constitution Congress, or the federal government generally, has the enumerated power to fund ACORN.

 

The question is: will Republicans use this ruling as incentive to work towards not funding leftwing causes with taxpayer dollars in the first place?