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).
George Washington owned Mt. Vernon, an enterprise of 8,000 acres with multiple small manufacturing businesses.
He had dozens of contracts with international interests for export of goods and commodities. Hell, he was even in the tobacco and liquor business.
His wealth was enormous.
And he divested nothing.
Also, I’m certain Warren never even gave a thought to whether such legislation would pass both houses or be signed by the POTUS. Or whether, if done under Obama, how to enforce it.
Because it’s NOT ENFORCEABLE.
Hmmm... doesn’t appear to be engine-like to me. Looks more like a WASP.
Noting that low-information Sen. Warren is a good example why the states should never have ratified the ill-conceived 17th Amendment imo, please consider the following side note about rich presidents.
Not only were many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wealthy, but President George Washington was probably one of the wealthiest citizens of his time.
Maybe a GOP senator with a spine will attach a rider to their bill that requires all congressman to divest of their business holdings so no one has a perceived self interest...
Now THERE’s airheaded self-importance for you. Trump announced his pending deadline for divesting his holdings several weeks ago. Due to the workload of cabinet building, etc. the date was moved back 2 weeks. But Fauxcahontas is just whistling Maresy Doats. Trump has already done it, without any input from Fauxcahontas.
Oh, so to be president, one must have all their property seized. Nice.
Just watch everyone, this psycho will run in 2020. Don’t dismiss her threat lightly, she’s a Bernie that doesn’t come across like a nutty uncle.
So Lizzie the dizzy wants to impose a bill of attainder on Mr. Trump.
The democrats haven’t read the Constitution.
5.56mm
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts needs to divest of her fake Indian heritage....
This sounds suspiciously like a Bill of Attainder.
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.” US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Para 3
Answer: Elizabeth Warren
Question: Who is even more unlikable than Hillary Clinton?
What ever Trump does for the Warren it will never be enough... if he disowned his children she would want him to murder them next. Hatred runs deep is the fake Indian...
Trump made his Money and then he went to Washington D.C.
Hillary went to Washington D.C. and then she made her Money.
Ick, she needs to schedule a teeth cleaning.
how about she get kicked out of senate for being a fraud Indian?
Trump made it very clear during the campaign that he was planning on having his children run his business should he win (which they couldn’t do if he places the business in a blind trust). Where were Warren’s complaints then? He built something productive and successful for his children to eventually take over. It’s enough that he’s removing himself from personal involvement in the business.
That he is also guaranteeing that the Trump organization will take on no new projects while he is in office (which will be a sacrifice for his sons running the organization) is going well beyond what he needs to do. If there are no new projects, then there should be no discussion of bribery via business deals or whatever Warren is afraid of.
well since this seems as though is going to be a common lib talking point, the obvious first question is, is it against the law for a sitting president to own a business and what are the precedents?