Guest blogged by Ernest A. Canning
As the community group ACORN, which is accused of no federal felonies, awaits a decision on the release of federal funds that they were unconstitutionally barred from receiving, according to a federal judge, the man who apparently videotaped some of their employees illegally and then released highly edited and misleading versions of those illegally obtained tapes now faces federal felony charges related to wiretapping a U.S. Senator….
On Nov. 12, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court
We initially covered the ACORN lawsuit in “ACORN Sues Congress Over Defunding Legislation.” The lawsuit directly pertained to House and Senate Appropriations Resolutions which singled out ACORN for a cut-off of federal funds. These were passed after James O’Keefe’s illicitly taped videos emerged, purporting to depict some ACORN employees giving advice to individuals posing as a prostitute and a pimp.
As Brad Friedman noted in “ACORN Cleared YET AGAIN of Wrongdoing,” former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger issued an independent report following the release of the tapes, finding incidents of mismanagement by ACORN but “no criminal wrongdoing.” CCR noted that Harshbarger, who reviewed the “complete transcripts,” concluded that “the infamous videotapes had been doctored and fully misrepresented the actions of the workers shown.”
On Dec. 11, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon granted ACORN’s motion for a preliminary injunction [PDF], ruling that it was likely ACORN would prevail on the merits of its claim that the House and Senate Appropriations Resolutions were unconstitutional Bills of Attainder.
Although no doubt fully aware of ACORN’s pending lawsuit, on Dec. 10 & Dec. 13 the House and Senate enacted the “FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act,” an amalgam of six separate bills which the President signed into law on Dec. 16. The Act contains a provision which is virtually identical to the earlier resolutions passed, cutting off ACORN from federal funds.
In response, ACORN filed a motion [PDF] to expand the previous preliminary injunction to the “FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act.”
As of this posting, we are still awaiting word from CCR on the fate of ACORN’s pending motion.
Meanwhile, in New Orleans, James O’Keefe, who posed as the pimp in the ACORN sting video, along with three others, was arrested and “charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony,” in relation to an alleged plot to tamper with the telephone system in the office of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA).
Despite repeated, often whiffed attacks by Republican partisans and operatives, ACORN has been instrumental in helping millions of low and middle-income American citizens to legally excercise their franchise to vote, as well as helping them take steps toward living the American dream by owning their own homes.
It remains unclear as to what O’Keefe and friends have done, other than to have harmed a voter-friendly organization unfairly and now having allegedly committed a federal felony offense.
===
Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968).









Let’s get Breitbart on TWITTER! Yeah!
Twitter him: “Hey, Breitbart, how’s that O’Keefe/Landreaux thing goin’???”
I love it! This is better than Christmas!
In no way shape or form is refusing taxpayer funding to ANY organization illegal. Considering tax is only collected at the point of a gun, the people (through Congress) have the right to take it away at any time.
Though I’m not surprised lawyers feel differently.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr.
So . . . you’re comparing Acorn to Hitler and Congress to Hungarian freedom fighters and the civil-rights movement? Wow. That takes something special.
Bills of attainder are unconstitutional, and they’re unconstitutional because they are the legislative branch’s subversion of judicial powers. Congress does not have the power–and certainly not the right–to dole out trial-free judgments.
So let me see, Daniel Miller, you believe that when Congress violates the Constitution, in this case by means of a Bill of Attainder, that’s legal?
And just what “legal” basis do you have for making that rather remarkable claim?
Oh, one more troubling aspect of your thoughtless remarks, Daniel Miller #3.
Your suggestion that what Hitler did was “legal” is at odds with the Nuremberg Charter. It was no defense for the members of his government to claim they were “only following orders” when they were charged with crimes against humanity for their role in the Holocaust. They were convicted and hanged. Hitler would have been hanged as well for conduct you describe as “legal” had he not taken the coward’s way out — suicide in that Berlin bunker.
Your suggestion that what Hitler did was “legal” is despicable. Are you suggesting that might makes right?
Perhaps you should give some thought before you write such an asinine comment — that is, if you are capable of rational thought.
Daniel Miller @ 3 said:
And people familiar with the U.S. Constitution and stuff. Enjoy the next cup of tea on me, genius! (P.S. Why do you hate America?)