Um, why isn't this an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder?
It doesn't impose punishment.
Of course, maybe now they will get her some real testing and some sound diagnostics, not a blood brother of Jack Kevorkian doing the diagnose.
Because "attainder" refers to an individual who is imprisoned or has his property confiscated.
This bill doesn't do that, instead it gives federal court jurisdiction, the Consitution specifically gives the Congress the power to define jurisdiction for the judiciary.
Because it is an emergency measure to save a woman's life, not to punish, not to deprive anyone of any property.
Because it's not a punishment. It simple allows a specific party access to the federal courts.
Weren't Bills of Attainder in effect bills that convicted an individual of an offense, incarcerated them, penalized them, etc?
This is not that type of bill. Lots of private bills exist. This is something between that and a regular bill. Heck, time was of the essence - cut them some slack....
I was wondering about that myself.
I'm a bit worried about this, but only because Michael Schiavo could - h-ll, will! - use this to challenge the law's validity, assuming that he has standing. OTOH, this could work out in the long run - Terri's life is saved, she gets the care and therapy and she needs, and she finally gets the tests that will determine how she ended up in he current state. If the law is overturned, well, I have a feeling that by Michael Schiavo will no longer be eligible to be her guardian due to his fleeing the country or indictment, and no precedent is set that the Demonrats can use help the guilty.
Because a bill of antainder is a criminal conviction of an individual through a legislative act.
A Bill of Attainder is a legislative finding of guilt. You can't be punished unless you are guilty. You can be found guilty by a jury of your peers or a legislature can simply pass a law stating that you (by name) are guilty skipping the trial altogether. But since the Constitution forbids a Bill of Attainder, the legislatures are forbidden from exercising that power.
This is not a Bill of Attainder.
"Within the U.S. Constitution, the clause forbidding attainder laws served two purposes. First, it reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, it embodied the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Any forfeiture of life, liberty or property without due process of law is by definition a bill of attainder."
Looks to me like there was a question whether or not Terri received due process before she was sentenced to die. The act of Congress was passed to correct what appeared to be a violation of the 'no bill of attainder' clause which the court issued when it passed sentence on Terri. Congress is seeking to restore the balance of powers in this case if the allegation is true. That's how I see it, but could be wrong. What's your opinion?