Sunday, November 29, 2009

Holder vs. Congress?

Eric Holder's willingness to pick fights may be a very serious liability soon.

The "Unlawful Combatant/Terrorists Are Really Civil-Lawbreakers" asininity is Holder picking a fight with the GWB Administration--not to mention the 9/11 Survivors' groups and, for that matter, the intel and military communities.

But that's mere playground antics compared to his picking a fight with Congress.

The Holder Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay Acorn [sic] for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group. Here is the Office of Legal Counsel memo reaching this conclusion.

OLC analysis is tortured. Congress stated: "None of the funds made available by this Joint Resolution or any prior Act may be provided to ACORN. . ." On its face, this looks like a blanket prohibition against paying ACORN under any circumstances. However, OLC purports to find ambiguity in the term "provided to" and then opts for a meaning that does not bar "payments made pursuant to a binding contractual duty."

Umnnnhhh...the appropriators are in Congress, not in the AG's office.

HT: PowerLine


Dan said...

The way I read this is that the money is for work already done. While I find ACORN despicable, if they had a contract, did the work as expected, then they should be paid. If the work was done after the legislation was passed into law then they should get paid.

Beer, Bicycles and the VRWC said...

I understand this in the same manner as Dan. For work already completed.