[Heyworth]

Giving you the benefit of a doubt the 14th Amendment enacted ex post facto Bills of Attainder (both unconstitutional)

If it's in the Constitution, how can it be unconstitutional? And it was one of you guys a couple of weeks ago claiming that any amendment to the Constitution trumped the original text.

[4CJ]

If something is prohibited, and you do it anyway, does that make it legal?

[capitan_refugio]

4ConservativeJustices has never gotten a solid handle on ex post facto laws (unconstitutional in criminal cases) versus retrospective legislation (constitutional). The difference was explained way back in the 1790s. As far as some provisions of the 14th Amendment being, in essence, a bill of attainder (legislative punishment) - that is quite true. Which is why it necessarily had to be in the form of a Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise, it would have been invalid. However, at least 2/3rds of each house of Congress approved and at least 3/4ths of the States ratified the Amendment. It is a done deal and was the verdict of the people with regard to the rebel leaders' treason.