Infidels Paradise

If Mr. Nadler is so concerned about the constitution then why did he vote for the bill that would tax AIG executives 90% on bonuses? seriously, im pretty sure stopping the flow of tax payer money to a criminal enterprise is WAY more constitutional than telling a company how much their workers are allowed to make. think about it.

Politico

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chairman of subcommittee on the Constitution, makes the case that the bill, if it’s ever signed into law, may not stand up to court challenges.

The ACORN bill, he claims, is essentially a “bill of attainder,” a measure targeted to benefit or penalize an individual or group which is prohibited in the Constitution, Article 1, Sections 9 and 10.

In a floor speech tonight, Nadler said:

A little while ago, the House passed an amendment to the bill that we were considering that says no contract or federal funds may ever go to ACORN, a named organization, or to any individual or organization affiliated with ACORN. Unfortunately, this was done in the spirit of the moment and nobody had the opportunity to point out that this is a flat violation of the Constitution, constituting a Bill of Attainder. The Constitution says that Congress shall never pass a Bill of Attainder. Bills of Attainder, no matter what their form, apply either to a named individual or to easily ascertainable members of a group, to inflict punishment. That’s exactly what this amendment does.

“It may be that ACORN is guilty of various infractions, and, if so, it ought to be vetted, or maybe sanctioned, by the appropriate administrative agency or by the judiciary. Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial.
The White House has been critical of ACORN but mum about the recent Congressional actions.