Replies

There are numerous cases that cite the exact phrase that I have written and, in fact, I have personally seen opposing counsel use the very phrase.

Cite a case that rulse that a Senate resolution can be a bill of attainder, and I will look into it.

Jesus, that is an arrogant statement. Look into it it?

Well then:

Foretich, Doris vs. USA, decided December 16, 2003 US Courts of Appeal for the District of Columbia circuit striking down the Morgan law as unconstitutional as follows:

"We therefore find that Congress violated the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder by singling out Dr. Foretich for legislative punishment."

Now are you still going to state that this established ruling and precedent is "silly, or are you going to play the word game that Reid himself is playing by arguing that this resolution is not the de facto equivalent because they did not get president Bush to sign it into law?"

I asked you to cite a case because you stated as a fact that there were cases that supported your argument, and so it seemed a pretty easy thing for you to give me the names of such cases. I looked up the Foretich case you cited, and right away I realized that you are WAYYYYYYY wrong. The Foretich case involved a law passed by Congress that involved a dispute between two parents of a minor child. Congress made, as the court described it, a "feeble attempt" to couch the law in general terms, but the law clearly was aimed at the Foretich case.

It was passed as a legislative rider to a transportation act. It was a LAW.

A resolution of the senate has no status as a law. It can provide a "sense of the senate", or if jointly done with the house a "sense of the Congress", but it does not have a binding effect on anyone. It's the same as if a bunch of Senators joined together on the capitol steps and started shouting in the direction of the White House, or in this case, towards Florida. It has the same force and effect as when Chuckie Schumer grabs a mike and starts bloviating, and then several rats then join in behind him....i.e., none at all.

Since it is not a "law", it cannot be a "bill of attainder", failing the requirement that it be a "bill".

You are clearly not an attorney, and for that reason your confusion is natural, but your self confidence is misplaced. No doubt I am arrogant, but in this instance, in any event, I am also correct.