As a Contracting Officer with a government agency, I can tell you that all government contracts (assuming it is a traditional contract executed under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, not an agreement, grant, or some other arrangement – I don’t work with those types of instruments) do have a Termination for the Government’s Convenience clause (or T4C as we call it for short). The T4C can be exercised at most any point in the contract, for no other reason than, as the name implies, our convenience.

We need to pay attention to that post. 84fiero is exactly who he says he is – I’ve worked a lot of years in government and this is eactly how a contracting officer talks and they do drive weird cars. Also, he has the correct answer.

I worked things from the program side with COs and I have actually terminated contracts for convenience. At this point all the effected COs should be processing T4Cs on ACORN. Pay the bills, but close it down.

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.

The question was in light of the law passed, not whether they had done anything wrong. The question was never can/should ACORN contracts be broken because they failed to deliver on any deliverables they said they would, or if they violated any other part of their contract.

84fiero spells it out clearly in his/her post.

It could be a case of Holder wanting Breithart to show his hand early rather than at the elections?
Annie on November 28, 2009 at 6:58 PM

Hummm?
You may be right.

You need a theme song for this…Things that make you hmmm….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LRstMPlN2I

Romeo13 on November 28, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn’t sure what you meant. I think I get your reasoning, and if I do, then I agree with you, The funding is from Congress, and Congress can void the agreement.

Guess that says a lot about people like Eric Holder and Jerry Brown, huh?

It could be a case of Holder wanting Breithart to show his hand early rather than at the elections?

Openingly campaigning for Obama w/ our tax-dollars:

Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Ep1tkNOUU

Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=625jUE78zjE

I don’t want my tax-dollars going to elect DemoRATS no more than I want them going to support killing babies.

Isn’t it fraud to claim you’re non-partison, yet only support the Dems, since they get money from ALL of us?

This is clearly (IMO) in Congress’s power… to fund, or STOP funding somthing as they wish. I see no provision in the Constitution thats says that contract LAW (enacted by Congress in fact, and then signed by some administration flunky) can trump the excercise of a Constitutional Power.

To me, the question is clear.

Romeo13 on November 28, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Sorry, to be more clear… I meant that contract law is written by Congress, and then the contracts themselves are signed by “some administration flunkys”.

How is that the power of the Constitution and opposed to just authorizing an expenditure? Not sure what your point was.

Itchee Dryback on November 28, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Point being this is not “just” a law, but Congress using their Constitutional Power… one specificly granted them in the Constitution… ie, the power of the purse.

No Law can stop the Constitutional powers. If there is a conflict, the Constitution wins.

This is clearly (IMO) in Congress’s power… to fund, or STOP funding somthing as they wish. I see no provision in the Constitution thats says that contract LAW (enacted by Congress in fact, and then signed by some administration flunky) can trump the excercise of a Constitutional Power.

To me, the question is clear.

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.

You mean like when President Obama ignored the law in shoving aside prefered bondholders in favor of the UAW?

The Bills to which these amendments which nailed ACORN were attatched to.

Romeo13 on November 28, 2009 at 4:13 PM

How is that the power of the Constitution and opposed to just authorizing an expenditure? Not sure what your point was.

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.

Translation:
Obama political appointee/crony Holder, has determined Obama can give billions of our tax dollars to Obama flunkies who help get Obama elected despite many criminal convictions for fraud.

And in exacting detail, did ACORN fulfill its obligation each and every time, all documentation to back up each and every claim along with a complete detail account of all expenditures.

Bean counters got Al Capone, they can get ACORN.

DSchoen on November 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Good point. Alinsky them. Make live up to the letter of their agreements.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”