someone help me out here please

i thought that congress couldn't pass a law pertaining to one person, i thought that was unconstitutional.

The Repugnicans used a procedural motion that is usually reserved for naming Post Offices or honoring sports teams. This was a highly controversial, if not abusing stretching of the rules, but with the GOOP in control of the agenda and the ethics committee, DeLay, Inc. didn't care...they had red meat to feed and a boss' ass to cover.

siting that it is unconstitutional?

The problem becomes that now that Congress has remanded the case to the court, it could be viewed in a different light...skewed by politics and media pressure.

I will assume the judge given this request will look at it on merit and toss it on the obvious unconstitutionality of this issue, but I'm suspect, because this is also the court that took on the Gore v. Florida case in 2000...ruling that to be outside of their jurisdiction (a states rights issue)...but had it swooped away by Scalia and the rest is history.

Unfortunately, I fear, this case is far removed from true justice any further and is a political football and those involved will treat it as such.

and more than likely the Fed judge will rule as such today. I am sure the House leaders know they'll be defeated - it's part of the plan. This mess is going to get much, much worse.

unconstitutional. The federal judge who gets this could decide not to even hear it and be within his bounds, there are so many issues in this besides Terri.

....bills of attainder. The Tenth Amendment only says

"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."

Bills of attainder are prohibited by Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3, which says

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

The problem here is that, by definition, a bill of attainder is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial, which is not what this action does, either.

I don't think that the bill of attainder business is at issue here. I do think there's a good chance that the court may throw this new appeal out as a State's Rights issue and outside the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and that does come under the Tenth Amendment.

The Bill of Rights has been bought and sold and "The revolution will not be telivised " .

usually by couching the language like: "any person residing in a state where more than 50% of economic activity is agricultural and who makes his income primarily from motorcycle sales exceeding $500,000 per year is eligible for a tax reduction of...."

Everyone knows that only applies to a particular congresscritter's brother-in-law.

Actually mentioning the person has been a no-no.