Steve - I agree with Mike.  I certainly agree with your sentiment, but as a matter of law, I might side with the Federal Judge.

I have not read the documents in the law suit and I am not specifically familiar with the bill you say was signed by the President to de-fund ACORN.  But I might expect that the provision of Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution might apply: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." (Article 1 defines the powers of the Congress)

A bill of attainder is a law calling out a single group (ACORN) for punishment (loss of funding) without the benefit of a trial (due process).  An ex post facto law is a bill that retroactively changes the way the law looks at a set of actions - after the actions were committed.  Both restrictions possibly applicable to ACORN.  

ACORN should never have received federal taxpayer funds, in my view.  They are a blatantly partisan and  political organization.  But the means to prevent them  from receiving funding in the future will need to be artfully drawn and other groups like ACORN should be effected as well.  

Not that the Congress reads the Constitution anyway - you are right about that.  I am assuming that ACORN applies for funding from broad programs that apply to community organizers generally.  To exclude ACORN from programs by name where they meet the criteria of a program for  similar groups would be questionable.

Rob's comment about the 10th Amendment indicates what may be the next big area of Supreme Court activity.  Historically the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") has not been very actively cited by the Court and has not been preferred to the use of the various elastic clauses to expand the authority of the Congress (Commerce clause or Necessary and Proper clause for example).  The current SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) might be ready to hear cases based upon 10th Amendment arguments.  To me it is surprising that the Courts have accepted that one of the original Bill of Rights was included without specific intent and application.  

Steve - I think our political culture is rotten and corrupt to the core to include both parties.  All political action seems to be a response to the demands of special interests who provide political contributions to candidates.  The longer the member is in office, the more entrenched the special interests are in his or her re-election plans.  Money and power rule this country - not the Constitution.

So I am slow to condemn the community organizers and other groups that at least claim to give voice to elements of our society that do not have a voice.  But what a lost opportunity !  What if ACORN were pushing for job training, education and jobs for their clients rather than government provided benefits and transfer payments - whose effect is fleeting, at best.  

I look forward to the day ACORN is prosecuted under RICO laws (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts), along with some labor unions.  Expect probably right after both parties stop pandering to the illegal immigrants for their votes.  Not in my lifetime.

Another part of the problem - the best minds are not in government service... if they were they would have been hired away by business.  (paraphrased from Ronald Reagan)