The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: thundley4 on November 30, 2009, 08:17:02 PM
-
No one doubts that Congress has the power of the pursestrings, and can choose to fund or not fund projects as it sees fit — within the Constitution, of course. But does Congress have the power to break contracts? The Department of Justice says no and that any contractual obligations between federal agencies and ACORN have to be met, regardless of Congress’ attempt to defund the controversial group:
The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group.
The department’s conclusion, laid out in a recently disclosed five-page memorandum from David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, adds a new wrinkle to a sharp political debate over the antipoverty group’s activities and recent efforts to distance the government from it. …
A Housing and Urban Development Department lawyer asked the Justice Department whether the new law meant that pre-existing contracts with Acorn should be broken. And in a memorandum signed Oct. 23 and posted online this week, Mr. Barron said the government should continue to make payments to Acorn as required by such contracts.
The new law “should not be read as directing or authorizing HUD to breach a pre-existing binding contractual obligation to make payments to Acorn or its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations where doing so would give rise to contractual liability,†Mr. Barron wrote.
This is an interesting question, and the DoJ may not be wrong here. On those relationships between ACORN and the government that are based on contracts, both parties have an obligation to meet the terms of the contracts. Congress cannot arbitrarily abrogate existing contracts without cause; each contract would have to have been violated by ACORN in some manner to make each contract individually void. The dissipation of its political favor can certainly keep ACORN from gaining any future contracts, but the existing contracts have to be honored.
HotAir (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/28/doj-federal-agencies-must-honor-acorn-contracts/)
-
If that's the case, then it flies in the face of the administration BREAKING contracts with they had with Ford and that shareholders/debters had with GM and Chrysler, eh?
They hypocricy is great with this administration.
-
It's the Obama way. If you work for a living you get it taken it from you. If you sing his praises and help him get in office that money that comes from those who work goes to them.
-
GM and Chrysler represent the evil capitalistic society that the Statists deplore and despise.
ACORN on the other hand are the frontline soldiers for the group of Community Organizers currently mucking up the White House.
No surprise that this DoJ made the ruling it did.
How else will they manage to gerrymander districts...create registered votes out of thin air and otherwise deface a political process that has served us for over 230 years?
-
No surprise that this DoJ made the ruling it did.
Especially following his decision not to file charges against the Black Panthers in Philly.
-
Especially following his decision not to file charges against the Black Panthers in Philly.
They're more than willing to protect their own.
-
Especially following his decision not to file charges against the Black Panthers in Philly.
so much for the "Justice" part of "department of justice" :censored:
-
so much for the "Justice" part of "department of justice" :censored:
Hi,
I have to believe that there is more to the story than we see. I cannot believe there is not some sort of opt out clause where they get paid to go away. I would rather do that than pay them to continue to register illegals and steal elections.
regards,
5412
-
Hi,
I have to believe that there is more to the story than we see. I cannot believe there is not some sort of opt out clause where they get paid to go away. I would rather do that than pay them to continue to register illegals and steal elections.
regards,
5412
I can not see how they maintain their tax free status.
-
I can not see how they maintain their tax free status.
With Liberals in power and rules meaning nothing to them...it's entirely possible.
-
I can not see how they maintain their tax free status.
Because they have people in their pockets.
My dad ran a non-profit for 25 years, but I will be the first to support any legislation that does away with the non-profit status once and for all. IMHO, "equal protection" applies to taxes.
-
Because they have people in their pockets.
My dad ran a non-profit for 25 years, but I will be the first to support any legislation that does away with the non-profit status once and for all. IMHO, "equal protection" applies to taxes.
Hi,
I TOTALLY agree with you about non profit. The same should apply to churches. When i was growing up the churches took care of those in need, now the government does. At the very least I would tax every dollar any church of any kind sends outside this country.
regards,
5412