Posted on 04/09/2010 11:33:17 AM PDT by GenXteacher
My first vanity post, I guess. I'm not a lawyer- just a high school history teacher. But I had a thought the other day and I thought it worth sharing. A Bill of Attainder is a law that basically declares people guilty without benefit of due process- no judicial procedure. Does the health care bill not meet this criteria? It essentially authorizes a penalty without benefit of trial- the IRS apparently can fine you for not having health insurance, since Congress apparently sees fit to criminalize it. Anyone care to have any thoughts on this?
No.
Here is the problem. Once something is done that should not be done, it creates all sorts of issues.
Thank you for being “just” a History teacher. YOU have and important job.
On your question, this whole bill is riddled with constitutional issues that will take YEARS to litigate.
I believe a bill of attainder is one where someone or some group is penalized after the fact.
With Obamacare, we’re pretty much being penalized up front (and on all fronts).
Law?! We don’t need no stinking law!
Sounds like one is penalized for being born.
That is Ex Post Facto.
Bill of Attainder is guilt without trial.
Good point.
Add it to the list.
For example . . . If a government in the U.S. were to outlaw "X" tomorrow, it would be unable to prosecute anyone for doing "X" before the law was passed.
Or a bill passed that singles out a person or group of people for punishment for actions declared illegal by the law.
“I believe a bill of attainder is one where someone or some group is penalized after the fact.”
Once upon a time, I was a civics teacher...I think that is an ex post facto law that you are thinking of.
LOL. Don’t be so hard on yourself . . . I’ll bet most people wouldn’t have known the difference. It’s easy to confuse a lot of those Constitutional terms!
And you’re right, too. Only I started posting my last one to you, RG and AC before I saw yours...
And that's only one of its many unconstitutional aspects.
They don’t give a damn about the Constitution...................
The sad thing is that, if it got to SCOTUS tomorrow, we'd be dependent upon the tender mercies of Anthony Kennedy. What should be a 9-zip decision against the bill will be a 5-4 decision one way...or the other.
Thus, I am not thrilled at the prospect of the Supreme Court resolving the issue.
>>>It tries to call the fine a “tax,”<<<
And then it says in the bill (now law) that no tax called for in the bill will be considered a ‘tax’.... Huh????
Sure hope the SCOTUS has their heads screwed on straight when they wade into this.
This whole thing is like saying ‘for the purposes of this bill, all sick will be considered healed’.....
The frustration is almost overwhelming in trying to communicate with our elected officials now days... 70 years and I have never seen such nonsense!
Off topic....since you are a history teacher. Did you see Beck last night? What are your thoughts on what we used to teach regarding the founders and the Constitution. I want to get the book “The signers of the Constitution” and learn more. We didnt learn that in school.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.