ACORN, The Rule Of Law & the DoJ
In his post about whether the federal government was contractually obligated to paying ACORN, Ed raised a number of legitimate points. Here’s a point that I agree with, though I don’t like what’s required:
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.
Not honoring existing contracts is something we shouldn’t consider. Obviously, terminating contracts because ACORN didn’t meet its legal obligation changes the discussion immediately. The minute ACORN breaks the terms of the contract, that contract is fair game. PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE.
Here’s another of Ed’s observations that I agree with but with a caveat:
The basic principle of law is that it binds the lawmakers as well as the governed. If we are to enforce contractual law, then the federal government has to meet the same obligations as every other citizen in its contractual relationships. Otherwise we encourage arbitrary despotism rather than the rule of law, and ACORN isn’t worth changing that basic fabric of the American system.
It’s impossible to argue against the rule of law. If we want to campaign on being the party of law and order, then we must obey the laws, including when we don’t like the fact that unsavory organizations like ACORN sometimes benefit from those laws.
That said, it’s worth noting that President Obama, the chief law enforcement officer in the United States, ignored settled law when he threw secured bondholders to the side and rewarded the UAW:
Barack Obama’s lawless conduct in connection with the Chrysler bankruptcy is sending shock waves through the business community. It is important to understand what is happening here. Many think that Obama is merely engaging in crony capitalism, favoring his political supporters (most notably the Auto Workers Union) at the expense of others. That’s true, of course, but it is much worse than that: Obama has tried to bully those who have not bought his favor–Chrysler’s non-TARP secured creditors–into giving up their legal rights by threatening to use the powers of the White House to damage their businesses. This sort of lawlessness is common in some of the more corrupt Third World countries, but it is brand new to the United States.
President Obama didn’t obey the rule of law when he threw the secured bondholders under his now infamous bus in favor of the UAW. Still, two wrongs don’t make a right. Just keep this in mind to throw in President Obama’s face if he ever lectures someone on the rule of law.
Ed has the right approach, saying that Congress should prevent ACORN from getting any new money, especially if it’s a contract job.
It’s time we started taking steps to stop the corruption machine known as ACORN. It’s just that simple.
Technorati Tags: ACORN, Corruption, Contracts, President Obama, Secure Bondholders, GM, Chrysler, Rule Of Law, Banana Republic, Democrats
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog