Congress violates Constitution with Planned Parenthood vote

[ehrnst]

"A bill of attainder is a law that inflicts punishment upon a particular individual without a judicial trial. In other words, a bill of attainder is, as the Supreme Court has termed it, a "trial by legislature" rather than by court.
.....

Though no one is talking about it, this most recent dust-up over federal funding for Planned Parenthood is very clearly an example of an unconstitutional bill of attainder: Congress is singling out Planned Parenthood and punishing the organization for allegedly improper and illegal actions.
........
Putting aside the fact that the videos show nothing of the sort, if it were somehow true that Planned Parenthood engaged in these actions, the organization would have violated federal laws and regulations. The proper way to respond to these alleged illegal actions, then, would be to hold a hearing at which Planned Parenthood could present its case. That's what our Constitution requires.

Instead, Congress has already tried and convicted Planned Parenthood for these alleged crimes. And as a result, Congress is punishing Planned Parenthood by taking away funding. After all, that's how you punish a corporation: You hit it in the pocketbook."

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20150928_Congress_violates_Constitution_with_Planned_Parenthood_vote.html#JEUwyEHYUIUoHZ06.99

[Baitball Blogger]

1. Republicans are going to use this as an opportunity to find soundbites for their

elections. They will try to pillory the head of Planned Parenthood to score points with their right-wing constituency.

[KamaAina]

2. An opposing view has been presented on DU

It states that Congress is under no obligation to fund anything, hence defunding PP is not "punishment".

Presented without comment.

[ehrnst]

3. If the basis of the defunding is illegal activity, hearings should be held.

They are negligent if they don't. They haven't.

[FBaggins]

13. Negligent and unconstitutional are very different things

This issue actually made it up to the 2nd Circuit with the ACORN defunding a few years ago.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/760e2ddf-7ec0-467f-9d53-b94804bf6202/1/doc/09-5172-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/760e2ddf-7ec0-467f-9d53-b94804bf6202/1/hilite/

[jalan48]

15. Thanks for the info.

One statement regarding the 'Bill of Attainder' not applying in the case of Acorn makes me think this is what the strategy is for de-funding PP.

"But the plaintiffs are not prohibited from any activities; they are only prohibited from receiving federal funds to continue their activities."

Essentially Congress can cherry pick which groups to de-fund and the courts are ok with it. It seems that either we need more people in Congress who think like we do or private funding needs to be found for groups like Acorn or PP.

[FBaggins]

16. Yes... Congress can defund just about whatever it wants

(With political ramifications of course)

The context for Bills of Attainder was that parliament was declaring people to be traitors and sentencing them to death.

[Control-Z]

4. Link? n/t

[KamaAina]

6. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027053139#post4

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027053139#post5

[Control-Z]

7. Thanks!

[geek tragedy]

5. that's probably correct, at least in the letter of the law.

If Congress decides Planned Parenthood's logo is offensive and that means it no longer deserves funds, it's within their rights to restrict funding to it.

the spending power is the core congressional power and courts are loathe to mess with it

[randome]

8. They are also clearly using religion to drive their actions.

Last edited Tue Sep 29, 2015, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Which should be just as illegal as a bill of attainder.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[jalan48]

9. Thanks for the post.

Do you think this will be tested in the courts? If so, it will be interesting to see how our current Supreme Court would decide.

[turbinetree]

11. I bet 5/4 that this is the perfect..........................

vehicle for this extreme right wing court to gut anything that has anything to do with privacy.
Look no further than how Roberts gave Alito the lead in public unions in California----------------------that's how this present corrupt U.S. Supreme courts operates under---------------the republicans go around and whine about "liberal" activists judges, when in fact its the right wing court dictating it's will on this country and basically enacting laws for this country by fiat ---------------
Stephanie Miller and Thom Hartman have had on there shows Ian Millhiser on this court ;

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/ian-millhiser/injustices/

Honk---------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[FBaggins]

14. It has been tested in the courts

See #13 above.

[saturnsring]

10. to those how have said this stuff about voting

"but i need a reason to vote.
im not voting for someone just cause there's a D by his name.
democrat havent inspired me to vote.
voting for the lesser of 2 evils is working for me anymore.
i need something to vote for not against "

these are actual quotes from duers NOT ME regarding voting
is this kind of stuff enough of a reason to vote? even if your candidate didnt make the general?

[floriduck]

12. I have watched nearly all of Cecile Richard's

Grilling by the House Oversight Committee and, once again, been completely disgusted with the attack tactics used by the Repubs to discuss a video(s) that they have not even seen. It was a common practice to ask a question in an indicting way and interrupt CR and not let her answer.

The bigger issue that this hearing is just one more example of conservatives fighting battles that were already ruled on by the Supreme Court. The Affordable Care Act is another example of them fighting an already decided law. When will they begin to look forward and do things that benefit the majority of US citizens? Likely never. Big business and radical religious zealots wag the tail of today's right side ideology.

I can only see a revolution described by Bernie Sanders, where progressive candidates running against these vicious dogs, show how they will help the middle and lower income citizenry. The Southeast has some of the poorest people in this country. These people can be motivated to vote for their own interest but they need a reason to care. Look for more and more future progressive candidates to use Bernie 's approach to activate voters.

[Angleae]

17. That's like saying reducing funding to the MIC is unconstitutional.

Congress cannot cancel funding during a fiscal year without trial. However, congress is not obligated to fund anything at the beginning of a fiscal year that is not required by the constitution.