Is it in the Constitution: Congress shall pass no law affecting one

person? It seems to me I heard that somewhere, but can't find it. Does anyone know?

Bills of Attainder.

at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/47.html


The prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictly and narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept. 1703 The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, ''no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .''

Do you think that was Congress did regarding Terri Schiavo conflicts with the last sentence? Just curious.

It didn't render a judgment, just opened the door for further litigation.

There is an argument to be made that it violated the 10th amendment by reopening a state judgment in an area not reserved to federal regulation.

The legislature 'punished' mMicheal Schiavo by denying him him his rights , ie, his right to not have a bill of attainder attached to a judgement he sought in court that rules in his favor.

The law did not impose a penalty or judgment. It only opened up another venue for the case to be heard. There was no penalty imposed on anyone for anything in regard to the legislation.

it would depend on what a court would consider "inflicting punishment".

Congress cant pass laws finding people guilty and punishing them. This is a bill of attainder.

They can pass laws affecting one person as long as the law isnt a punishment and doesn't violate equal protection.

Well, I think what the framers of the Constitution were getting at, as far as bills of attainder, is to enforce the separation of powers. Basically, they wanted to ensure that the legislative body (Congress) didn't excercise the functions of the judicial branch (i.e. trial by legislature).

And I think that's exactly what Congress did in the Schiavo case. They didn't like the rulings that the courts consistently handed down (in favor of Mr. Schiavo), so they tried to pass a law and said "this is a one time deal."

So I think the whole point in this is NOT that Congress passed a law for one person (that's part of it) but that they tried to excercise the function of the judicial branch.

Go here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/19/174224/252

The constitutional issue with Schiavo is the violation of the seperation of powers. The legislature tried to overide the courts.

This has nothing to do with a bill of attainder, which, as you well stated is a legislative trial. Their motive in the Shciavo case was to save her life, while you may not agree on the goodness of that motive, it really cant be construed as a punishment.

Technically you can see what they did as punishment. Why? Because her husband (and others who knew her) said she had stated verbally (before she became ill) that she would not want to be kept alive by extraordinary measures. Her husband said he was simply trying to execute her wishes. And think of the irony in the fact that they were trying to feed a woman with a history of bulimia.

So, I would consider keeping someone alive against their wishes as punishment. And they were punishing Michael Shiavo too, by trying to stop him from carrying out his duties as her legal guardian.

But I agree with you, in reality, I just think legally its a stretch.