I’m sure all the legal scholars populating the ranks of the Teabag movement will fully appreciate congressman Nadler’s objection to the prohibitive Congressional initiative regarding proposed suspension of funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“ACORN”) that unfortunately violates Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution.

I’d be highly amused to see the result of rounding up a hundred (a thousand or even 1.8 million) “teabaggers” who are endlessly nattering on about the Constitution and asking them to explain what a bill of attainder is…


7 Replies to “Gotcha!”

  1. Oh, Red, you know the constitution only applies when it agrees with the prejudices (oops, I meant beliefs) on the extreme right of the political spectrum.

    It’s all very complicated . . . something to do with the “original intent” of long-dead guys who dreamed it up. Scalia could explain it more precisely, or maybe a spokesperson from the Federalist Society if he’s busy being paid to pontificate somewhere. Lastly, despite the sound of it, “original intent” actually has nothing to do with the Law & Order TV show.

    You and the honourable representative from New York really should leave this kinda thing to the experts . . . 😉

  2. And as for that there bill of attainder, as a tea-bagger buddy of mine would say, “my forty-five says it sure as hell hope ain’t gonna come outta my taxes.”


  3. Yeah, I know… silly me. I’m sure that Glenn Beck’s improvised mob of white trash have a much better understanding of the founders’ “original intent” than I could ever possibly hope to grasp.

  4. didn’t we go through this a few years ago, with the terry schiavo episode? fucking pols; pass the dirty work on to the activist judicial.


  5. Here’s a brief but more thorough reading of the constitutional law and court rulings on bills of attainder for those interested:

    There seems to be a good argument for the unconstitutionality of this law, but having read up a bit now I think it is a little difficult to argue that denying funding to a group is “punishment” when it is clearly within the right of government to fund or not fund anyone or any group it pleases. It seems it would come down to whether “it reasonably can be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes” (which is language taken from a challenge to a law that did not name Exxon Valdez from shipping in parts of Alaska, but stated that no “vessel that spilled more than one million gallons of oil into the marine environment after March 22, 1989” could ship in parts of Alaska).

    Interesting though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s