A stern judge presides as reparations fight begins

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"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.

"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.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

See also, SBC v. FCC.

Subscriptions | FAQ | Feedback | Notices & Disclaimers | Privacy Policy
Copyright 1998-2003 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.
Phone: 202-364-8882. P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.

Now, what of legislation-by-judicial-precedent?

Congress doesn't have the huevos to assert their regulatory role or impeach them. What are we to do?

It's clear that you can't hold individuals responsible for the crimes of their ancestors, so how can one hold companies that commited no crime by the laws of the day, paid off the claims against their policies and ceased the activity when it became illegal responsible?

If anybody with an IQ over room temperature finds for these frauds, we're closer to "An appeal to Nature's God" than I thought we were.

but many times, I get offended with his tendency to take the members of the black community who exhibit the worst behavior and attribute that to all of us.

Have you listened to him very much? Maybe you heard him at the particular times he seemed to do that? I haven't noticed that particularly, he definitely makes jokes that are not politically correct; OTOH I have heard him give a lot of credit and respect for black people who are not shackled by anger and the victim mentality, and therefore can take advantage of opportunities that America has to offer.

I am not black, but lived in Hawaii for around 14 years where "haoles" are in the minority - especially on the Big Island. And I did experience people giving me "stink eye" just because I was white, being rude, etc. And it is not fun to experience. I also learned that people who are racially prejudiced carry around anger and hate in their hearts, and those who are the targets don't have to. Nothing poisons a person - even their physical health - like hate and anger.

I have listened to him. On economic policy, I agree with many things he says. After all, I am a fiscal conservative. On the social side, he tends to get under my skin (no pun intended).... When he was asked about Kobe recently, he automatically associates Kobe with Mike Tyson... He was speaking about Tupac Shakur and did not even have the courtesy to pronounce his name correctly while insulting him... It is the way that people start addressing people by other than their names, the sweeping generalizations that I object to. I understand that he is exercising his right as a commentator... I also do not demand or expect political correctness from anyone. However, as I have said many times, the level of hostile discourse where people can not discuss an issue of importance is made more difficult because of people on the left and the right who forget that people's lives and identity are important... The de-humanizing act of taking away a person's name and grouping them into an undesirable category needs to be worked on...
By the way, he was just unpleasant with F. Lee Bailey (Flea) for defending OJ (who I think did it or knows who did)...
BTW, what is a "Haole"?

Me, I am not angry about much...Nor do I feel like a victim... I do not mind, however, pointing out when someone does more harm than good...

'Haole" literally means "foreigner" but in current Hawaiian style pidgin, means "whitey". And as concerning Rush's mispronunciation of Tupac Shakur (or similar incidents) I am sure he would be similarly slighting (if there was a slight) towards, say, Eminem, or anyone who glorifies a low-life of violence. hatred, or mayhem. Have you listened to Rush a lot? Because I have, (although not in the last 2+ years, since I moved to a small valley surrounded by mountains and I can barely get any radio stations except *GAG!!* NPR ) I think your're misreading Rush. He doesn't respect that "gangsta culture" or wannabes of such "culture". It's not a black thing, it's a general low=life thing. There's plenty of haole boys who follow that "gangsta wannabe" route, and they're poor miseries too.

One's birth circumstances are not inescapable, that is one thing Rush says. It makes it harder to escape from, if a person is born to a single drug addicted mother in a ghetto (for instasnce) but not impossible. God gives us free will, although not all equal hands of cards. Some people are born with a silver spoon (but maybe a set of kook parents!) and some are born in a broken poor family (but maybe a great grandparent who makes a difference!). So everyone has their conditioning that gives them challenges in life.
Regards.

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.