JUDGE GREER WAS RIGHT TO ZOT!

1789

[sittingonthefence]

In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has an negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.

Well what Congress did was unconstitutional, therefore the judges UPHELD the constitution.

[DainBramage]

Sitting on your brain is more like it.

[thoughtomator]

Actually a Bill of Attainder is a law that declares someone guilty of a crime or mandates punishment without a trial. "Negative effect" could be construed to mean anything. No definition of "Bill of Attainder" contains that phrase.

[An American In Dairyland]

Hello newbie. You are definitely not "sitting on the fence." HTH.

[Warlord]

"Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder. Well what Congress did was unconstitutional, therefore the judges UPHELD the constitution."

You have just redefined the idea of "Bill of Attainder." That's the problem.

[OSHA]

You must be a constitutional law scholar from DU.

[Nick Danger]

"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.

[grey_whiskers]

Whenever I hear the phrase "Bill of Attainder" I think of the proposed "censure-plus" proposed by the DNC and bandied about by the DNC puppets as a suitable punishment for Bill Clinton re: the Monica Lewinsky affair.

They knew it was explicitly, verbatim unconsitutional; and knew that most CNN-viewers didn't.

What slimebags.

[DainBramage]

"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

[TAdams8591]

Ridiculous. Congress has acted in this manner in the past and I expect will do so again in the future.

[Edgerunner]

Righton Righton...

[Bahbah]

the judges UPHELD the constitution.

If you are bothering to read the responses to your post, you already realize that you are wrong.

[Tex52]

We have judges going to international law to justify their decisions. How about we go to our very first document, the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these things to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights. That among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Perhaps the same men that wrote these words hold the key to the true meaning of the Constitution. If we fail to recognize the right to life, all other constitutional issues are moot.

[expatguy]

LMFAO

BRAIIINNNS!

[socal_parrot]

or grant any Title of Nobility.

So I'm not the Earl of Orange County?

[Bahbah]

So I'm not the Earl of Orange County?

No. I am so sorry. You must be devastated.

[Zacs Mom]

he's not sittin' on a fence anymore, is he

[general_re]

In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has an negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment).

Dude, shut up. Seriously. You're embarrassing yourself.

[infidel29]

...what Congress did was unconstitutional, therefore the judges UPHELD the constitution.

All Congress did was to extend the jurisdiction of the Federal court to have jurisdiction over the Schaivo case and to ask for a de Novo hearing. These are provided for in the Constitution. The judiciary decided that rather than upholding the will of the people of the United States, they would thumb their nose at Congress and admonish them along with the President for their attempts.

The fence you're sititng on must be located somewhere between DU and the EU.

Finally,

[general_re]

Oh, brilliant move g_r - highlight the wrong part of the troll's post. LOL - off to the coffee machine again...