I see this very differently

I see this as "No longer willing to support" not as a "Punishment..."



Nadler: ACORN ban unconstitutional: "

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.

"