GRANTS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON GROUNDS OF ARTICLE I, SECTION IX OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
by John Charlton
(Dec. 12, 2009) — Yesterday afternoon, Federal Judge Nina Gershon of the Federl District Court, Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn, NY, issued a preliminary injunction obstructing the implementation of Congress’ ban on funding ACORN.
The injunction was issued to uphold Article I, section ix of the United States Constitution, which reads:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.
A bill of attainder in British law, was one which stripped the personal rights from the individual so named. In earlier centuries they were issued by the King of England against nobles who had risen up against him or conspired against his throne. Nobles who were thus attainted lost their titles and properties, and became incapable of passing these to their heirs. It was the most dredded of all punishments in Medieval England.
And ex post facto law, is any law which imposes an obligation retroactively, or which attempts to alter the legal obligations of individuals during the period of time before it came into force.
Our Founding Fathers placed this Article II, section ix prohibition in our Constitution to prevent poltical power in Congress from being used to issue de facto judicial judgements of guilt and punishment upon individuals, without granting them a fair and public trial.
Judge Nina Gershon is upholding the Constitution in her ruling, which can be read on line through this link.
That ACORN has sought to use this provision to conintue receiving tax payer monies, was clever. But they were within their constitutional rights, even though it is widely believed that they have every intention of using those rights and government monies to lobby for special interest groups, and to create a political power base for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
In fact, the manner in which the Democrat controlled Congress imposed this ban on ACORN was sufficiently public enough to score points for the Party, while being unconstitutional enough not to stick. Thus their collaborater in community organizing gets off, and they continue their pretense of impartiality and honesty.