Break out your copy of the U.S. Constitution for an old-fashioned Article I, Section IX brouhaha.

When U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler and some other Democrats voted against cutting off federal money to scandal-plagued liberal group ACORN, they argued that de-funding the group was an unconstitutional “bill of attainder.”

The measure passed on a 345-75 vote with local U.S. Reps. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton, and Tom Rooney, R-Tequesta, in favor, Wexler opposed and U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Miramar, answering “present.”

Now ACORN has filed a federal suit challenging the congressional action on bill-of-attainder grounds.

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Boca Raton, and some other Democrats who voted against a measure to deny federal money to scandal-tainted ACORN said they did so because they regarded the action as an unconstitutional “bill of attainder.”

Wexler was on the losing end of a 345-75 House vote in which local U.S. Reps. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton, and Tom Rooney, R-Tequesta, voted with the majority and U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Miramar, answered “present.”

A bill of attainder, forbidden in Article I, Section IX of the constitution, is a legislative act that imposes punishment on a specific person or group without a trial or hearing. But there’s legal precendent allowing a law that singles out an entity if “the law under challenge, viewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed, reasonably can be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes.”

UCLA law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh offers this discussion of the matter and concludes: “My rereading of the precedents leads me to confidently and unambiguously say, ‘I don’t know.’ “