Congress shit on the Constitution: Bill of Attainder

Last week it was expressed by some DUers that we should take the time to read the Constitution. I printed it out and it sat on my desk until tonight. I read it, then did some research. What I found below should be sent to everyone including those who voted against our Constitution tonight. They are traiters, IMO.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

sigh...just add one more to the long list. I guess after a while it doesn't matter how much the Constitution is shit on.

We could write a book on it, but then we'd probably be the only ones buying it. :(

that Republicans actually CARE about the Constitution. It wouldn't surprise me if they have the constitution printed on their toilet paper.

Bottom Line: They care about POWER. Nothing and no one else.

A major issue in the United Kingdom's legal sphere is the lack of a written constitution. Proponents state that a written constitution would provide greater accountability and democracy. Opponents, on the other hand, point to other countries with written constitutions (such as the former U.S.S.R.) guaranteeing rights that, in fact, are ignored.

I think we're pretty much going in the direction of a true dictatorship.

However, in a court of actual bleeping law, I'm sure this will be presented as interfering with Terri's right to, through her husband, refuse medical treatment. Legally that is exactly what is the case. (The parents are spouting some real crazy stuff lately like that this has never been in a court of law or something.. anyway, the state does not own Terri, and I don't see that principle changing soon)

Thanks for including it.

argument at me. And I reply with "so, what does it matter if our government doesn't follow the constitution." Not to mention, the attempt to limit civil liberties by adding amendments such as defining marriage, etc.

It seems the fundies are making the exact same mistake with our Constitution that power mongers have made throughout history with the Bible. They deem it as an interpretable document that can be reworded and amended to suit their greedy needs.

It's obviously no where near the longest living government. The Brits have at least 700 years on us.

oldest Federal Constitution in existence. Democracy has been around since the Greeks.

I suppose one can argue the Magna Carta isn't a constitution, but it laid the foundation for constitutional rule. Why is it that Americans must always define themselves as superior to the rest of the world? Isn't it sufficient to express some pride at our own Constitution without claiming ours is older or superior to everyone else's?

of superiority. To clarify further (on your argument for the Magna Carta): the US Constitution is the oldest codified written national constitution still in force. Personally, I don't see this as a reason to claim the high road.

I live in Paris, and in the 2 yrs I've been here, I've seen more protests against the government than I've seen my whole life in the States, and they're not even at war. I think the true test of a democracy is the willingness of it's people to stand up for injustices. In all fairness, I wasn't born until '73 so, I missed the America that I can only hope for now. In regards to the Constitution and to the argument of the OP, it is meaningless if it is not followed as it was meant to be.


Q. Why has our Constitution been classed as "rigid"?
A. The term "rigid" is used in opposition to "flexible" because the provisions are in a written document which cannot be legally changed with the same ease and in the same manner as ordinary laws. The British Constitution, which is unwritten, can, on the other hand, be changed overnight by act of Parliament.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html

"The Constitution is like a menu, meant to be changed to stay interesting."

but I don't believe the basic premises are meant to be changed.

The British constitution mainly sits in the ether.

Magna Carta was simply an expression of some of the traditional freedoms of the English.

We'd been governed in a 'constitutional' manner for centuries before that.

Or are constitutions themselves a product of the nation state, that dates from the late 18th to 19th centuries according to Benedict Anderson.

The old monarchies of Europe didn't need them, we'd all be governed under gradually evolving traditions (or in the less fortunate cases royal absolutism) which were old even back then.

I know all of the American nations wrote constitutions shortly after independence. I don't know anything about Eastern or Islamic history though. I wonder what sort of documents they used. Sharia law, for example. Is that based entirely on the Koran?

Which rather implies that the Islamic 'countries' didn't.

Originally the Caliphs ruled as successors to Mohammed; sharia is derived from the Qur'an and is subject to the discovery of new depths, but not change.

I'm not so sure about the Ottomans, once they took over from the Caliphs.

Constitutions don't sit very easily with absolute rule - but I suppose that it depends on how one defines constitution (e.g. what about the Law Code of Hammurabi?).

A bill of attainder creates a crime, which is not what has been done here.