ACORN Files Lawsuit Against Government: Claim That Congress Passed a Bill of Attainder May Be Valid

I am no fan of ACORN, or the things that they’ve been accused of doing, including their roles in pressuring banks to extend loans to people who had no business getting loans, which lead to the sub-prime mortgage mess.

But when Congress de-funded the group of millions of dollars, ACORN was effectively crippled. Again, no big loss in my view.

But ACORN filed a lawsuit, claiming that the act of Congress that de-funded them was a bill of attainder, which is a law that targets one individual or group for punishment without due process or a trial, and is illegal under Article 1 of the Constitution. Individuals who are members of ACORN have been on trial, but the group as a whole has not.

They may have a point. Under the circumstances, the Congress probably should have suspended funding pending an investigation, rather than banning it outright.

How much more is this going to cost the taxpayers?

Congress Passes Bill That May Not Be Constitutional: Is This Really the Best Way to Deal With Golden Parachutes?

The House of Representatives passed a bill that severely taxes those companies that accept federal bailouts on one hand but pay out golden parachutes (bonuses) to their past and present executives on the other. The bill is designed to address public anger over AIG and other companies paying out millions of dollars to the people that got us into this mess in the first place.

While I think that the companies have earned the public black eye that they've gotten over the last few weeks, the measure passed in the House may not pass Constitutional muster. Hasn't the Constitution been shredded enough over the last eight years? Has anyone even heard of "due process" in Congress? And targeted severe taxes on specific companies and not any others, which is prohibited in the Constitution as a "bill of attainder?"

The Democratic Congress and the Administration are messing things up good. They're acting quite hastily, and the kind of legislation born in haste usually ends up being really bad legislation.

I disagree with any measure taken by Congress that violates the Constitution.

Governor Blagojevich Had Every Right to Appoint Obama Successor to Senate Seat: He's Not Been Removed From Office or Convicted of ANYTHING Yet

Embattled Illinois Governor Blagojevich made headlines around the world when he defied public opinion and the opinions of both his state government and the U.S. Senate itself when he appointed someone to the Senate seat that he was accused of trying to sell for profit.

And yet, he had every right to do so, and it will more than likely be upheld by the courts.

Blagojevich has not been stood up in front of a jury and been pronounced guilty; nor has the Illinois legislature voted on any measure to impeach the governor. If they wanted to prevent this end, they should have impeached Blagojevich immediately so as to strip him of the power to appoint a successor. They didn't do that, so the Illinois secretary of state is obligated to certify the appointment and issue the appropriate credentials for the new junior Senator from Illinois.

I don't have an opinion on the nominee; he's not been accused of anything wrong and he is qualified under Constitutional guidelines.

It's troubling to see the government trying to circumvent the Constitution and ignoring the fact that this governor is innocent until found guilty. And as much as I'm enjoying the spectacle, I hope it doesn't drag on. The Constitution has already been shot full of holes; we don't need one of the fundamental aspects of Constitutional protections on due process to be weakened any further.

WSJ Says Treatment of Bush Was "Disgraceful": Administration's Shredding of Constitution Was MORE Disgraceful

I'm at odds with the Wall Street Journal's op-ed piece on how President Bush was treated during the campaign of the last two years.

Frankly, I'm not concerned with what our enemies overseas are thinking. I'm much more concerned about the damage done to our Constitution in the name of national security that this Administration and this President have allowed to occur.

Indefinite detention of people? No habeas corpus? Star chamber justice? Not being allowed to confront their accusers? No trial by jury? No attorneys? No independent judicial review of the cases and sentences? Illegal evidence is allowed? A majority vote to decide guilt, and not a unanimous vote? Torture?

No, the Constitution of the United States is the SUPREME law of the land, and cannot be altered by lesser laws like the Patriot Act or the Military Commission Act of 2006. It's protections cannot be changed until the Constitution is properly amended and voted on as outlined in the Constitution itself. That has NOT happened.

It's true that the country hasn't been attacked since 9/11, but that's because it's easier for terrorists to shoot at American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than trying to infiltrate over here and risk getting caught before being able to do any damage. And our soldiers are more than happy to return the favor and fire back.

I am in complete disagreement with the Wall Street Journal on this issue. The other issues quoted in the article are trivial, compared to the damage that President Bush has done and received criticism on, and rightfully so.

Conservatives Have it Wrong on Two Key Issues: the Death Penalty and Habeas Corpus

I am again at odds with mainstream conservatism over two stands that they've decided to continue this election year. And I'm not sure how this will affect my vote in the fall.

The first issue is the death penalty. When the Supreme Court ruled--correctly--on the proportionality of the death penalty to heinous crimes (such as the child rape case) where the victim survives, the conservatives loudly denounced the decision and blasted the majority opinion.

The holier-than-thou attitude toward employing the death penalty that has been coming from conservatives is wearing more than a little thin. At the very least, they should be denouncing the error-riddled death penalty system and leading the charge to investigate every case to make certain that they are going to execute the right person for the right crime. DNA evidence is responsible for clearing at least one death row inmate every month. Until this evidence is considered, there should be a moratorium on executions across the country.

The other problem I see with the conservative movement is the unwillingness to extend the Writ of Habeas Corpus to captured enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay and other U.S. military prisons around the world.

The media wrote that the Supreme Court "granted" the writ to Gitmo detainees. How can they "grant" the writ to detainees when they already have habeas corpus rights as determined by international law? The American and British governments made sure that it was written into the United Nations charter back in 1948.

Habeas Corpus (the right to challenge unlawful detention and petition for relief) is not just an American custom, as some people seem to think. If a detainee is a citizen of a UN signatory nation, then they have habeas corpus automatically. They don't need to be American citizens to have that basic human right. But the U.S. government has systematically ignored this little point.

What concerns me is the fact that a government that is unwilling to extend basic human rights to non-citizens is only a few steps away from engaging in this kind of conduct against it's own people too. All one has to do is look at what happened to Japanese-Americans during World War II to see that this has already happened in our history.

And the conservatives were braying like elephants when the Supreme Court decided in favor of making sure that the government follows the rules which it is bound to follow, both within the framework of our own Constitution, and with the United Nations charter.

I can't ignore either of these issues in the fall.

Congress Keeps Overstepping It's Constitutional Boundaries: Pelosi Trip Was Most Recent Example

The shredding of the Constitution continues.

Now that the Bush Administration has been forced to stop doing it, Congress has started doing it themselves.

Congress needs to be reminded that the White House is in charge of day-to-day diplomacy with foreign nations. There is one branch of government that carries on diplomacy with other nations--not two with 536 Presidents (535 in Congress plus the real one in the White House).

Congress can ratify or reject treaties, vote on foreign aid appropriations and regulate commerce with other governments. There is no provision in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution for Congress to conduct foreign relations.

Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution provides for the President to receive Ambassadors of foreign nations (and to conduct diplomacy) on behalf of the entire nation.

Pelosi's trip violated the spirit of the Constitution; but all it really did was showcase her grandstanding. If the Democrats want their foreign policy to be paramount, they have to win the Presidency in an election first. Not before.

Murtha's Proposal Intrudes on Separation of Powers; The President in CinC, Not Murtha and Not Congress

Congressman Jack Murtha is announcing plans to put all kinds of conditions on what the military must do in order to get money that's been allocated to waging war in Iraq.

They include: one year of training for any soldier designated for a combat tour in Iraq, one year time limit in Iraq with no extensions, no soldier goes to Iraq unless fully trained and fully equipped, and one year between combat tours.

These are great ideas, but there's only one problem. These ideas should be coming from the Constitutionally recognized Commander in Chief.

That's not Jack Murtha; nor is it any of his colleagues in Congress. It's the President of the United States.

Congress does have the power of the purse, but only to the point of a "yes" or "no" vote to spending bills of their or the President's creation. That means if the majority of Congress wants to pass a spending bill that funds the military but ends funding for the Iraq War, they can do so at will.

But these conditions (which I do like) cannot be made by Congress as to how the war is waged and how military personnel are moved around. That falls into the President's jurisdiction.

Murtha ought to push for President Bush to adopt these "suggestions" as military policy, and get to the main event of the Democratic agenda that they keep denying: their intent to de-fund the war itself (which I think is unwise at this point).

There's got to be a better way to expressing displeasure with the President than feeding parts of the Constitution into a paper shredder. Bush did it first (equal protection), now Congress wants to do it too.

THROW THEM ALL OUT OF OFFICE!