Replies

A bill of attainder is, in context of legislative acts, a legislative body convicting someone of a crime and imposing penalties by legislative act, as by passing a law, or otherwise by a legislature voting to convict or punish someone. The Constitution forbids it... mostly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

There are two exceptions defined in the Constitution:

One, in the case of impeachment... where it is legislatures alone who act, although with judicial participation required in the case of the President being impeached, as the Chief Justice presides...

That (mostly, again) means that if you’re not able to be impeached, you can’t be subjected to attainder.

However, attainder, as it exists in the judicial meaning of it versus the legislative sense, means a court empowered in similarly stripping a person of civil rights and property rights, which, in the Constitution, is allowed in the case of treason... in which case attainder is allowed, but only within the limits of the lifetime of a person, with no corruption of blood... meaning no inheritance of guilt or punishment.

Here in the U.S. understanding:

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/46-corruption-of-the-blood-and-forfeiture.html

Here in the English view, which, prior to this change in 1814, was one of the major injustices that served as a driving factor in the Revolutionary War:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_of_Blood_Act_1814

I would argue that civil forfeiture as it is practiced today runs afoul of the prohibition on attainder AND corruption of blood... while also obviating civil right, property rights, and due process in its imposition. It empowers police to act as prosecutor, judge and jury in takings that occur FAR outside due process...