Now that the GOP is passing Bills of Attainder

[Sandpiper]

With the full cooperation of cowardly Democrats, I might add.


How long before they go for some Ex Post Facto laws too?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Constitution? They don't need no stinking Constitution.

But then, I think we've already figured that out...

[Sandpiper]

2. The scary part is how brazen they've become

They don't even try to hide their two-step on the Constitution anymore.

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Really

It's so obvious and quite scary. I'm afraid of what's next... :scared:

[MissB]

3. Will nothing outrage Americans?

[Earth_First]

5. ZZZZ...

WAKE UP!

[jsw_81]

4. Constitution?

We don't need no stinkin Constution in Bush's America! He got his 51 percent "mandate" and it's full speed ahead until every state is red!</freeper>

[OilemFirchen]

7. Constitution, Schmonstitution...

I hereby resurrect H.R. 666, c. 1995, in which the puggie House voted down the 4th Amendment as an amendment:

http://www.sumeria.net/politics/hr666.html

[Liberty Belle]

8. What are bills of Attainder?

[MissB]

9. Bills written with a single person in mind

iirc.

[Liberty Belle]

15. Ah. Terri Shiavo.

[Sandpiper]

10. Acts of legislation aimed at individuals

Generally for the purpose of punishing an individual without a trial.

i.e. Parliament declares John Adams to be a criminal.



In this case though, a special piece of legislation has been crafted solely to federalize the case of Terry Schiavo, trumping state sovereignty and the 10th amendment.

[Emboldened Chimp]

12. Is precedent established or is it a 'special case'...

You know, like Bush v. Gore.

[Sandpiper]

14. To my knowledge, this is a unique piece of legislation

Bill of Attainder issues generally applied to legislation that singled out individuals for punishment.

I know of no case where Congress has drafted a piece of legislation granting a single a person a benefit ,i.e., a special right to a federal appeal from a matter of state law.

[burrowowl]

28. It is punishment!

For Terri or her body or whatever.

[lawladyprof]

29. Well, it is punishing Michael Schiavo because it is singling him out

to have the decision of a state court in his "favor" overturned.

[merh]

38. That would appear to be a punishment to me.

But what do I know. Others are arguing that this is not a punishment, thus bill of attainder does not apply. :shrug:

[markus]

30. Yes, but did you watch the floor debate?

I think the legislative intent was quite clear, and this is awfully close to a bill of attainder. You could certainly challenge it's legitimacy in federal court.

[LiberalFighter]

44. Would it be a benefit to gw*dipshit to have a tobasco enema?

[OilemFirchen]

21. Court cases are not legislation

I saw this error on another thread, as well. Courts, by their nature, decide on cases involving an individual or individuals while Congress is barred from passing legislation targeting same.

Moreso, Congress is not obliged to recognize precedence. In fact, they're typically ignorant of any...

[LoganW]

36. You can not make such a comparison

apples and oranges.

The courts are *supposed* to deal with specific individuals. Congress, however, is NOT supposed to do so.

[Radio_Lady]

11. Please explain the 4th Amendment 1995 vote to me...

from sumeria.com.

I don't understand.

[OilemFirchen]

17. In a nutshell,

H.R. 666 was legislation introduced by McCollum (R, FL) designed to allow for the inclusion of certain evidence in criminal proceedings, previously having been excluded. From thomas.gov:

Amends the Federal criminal code to bar the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure carried out under circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment. Specifies that the fact that evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant constitutes prima facie evidence of the existence of such circumstances, etc.

As the legislation was clearly unconstitutional, literally violating the 4th by, effectively, nullifying the 4th, Watt (D, CA) actually introduced the 4th as an amendment to the bill:

Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 2, line 13, strike all after the word `States,` and insert the following:
PAGE H1332
`provided that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.`

The amendment was voted down 303 to 121.

[Erika]

13. The U.S. as we have known it is dead

We now have no checks and balances in government. If the GOP do not like how state judges rule, they just make federal laws usurping states rights and making Big Brother federal government the boss.

I am sick that the democrats could have blocked this but did not. DeLay, the jerk, was on TV announcing this "bipartisan" agreement to have the feds take over states rights to protect Terri against this horrible person (her husband) and his decisions.

Before another person has their food tube removed, your family life is now subject to the criticism and judgment of the federal government.

[Sandpiper]

16. If this law is upheld, State sovereignty is officially dead

And the 10th Amendment is no longer of force or efficacy.

[Erika]

18. Agreed

We will be standing in lines "asking" big brother for their permission to end a loved one's life. They will have every right to delve into our personal lives, and deem whether we are "moral" enough, in their opinion, to request tube removal.

I am OUTRAGED that any democrat went along with it. You expect sleaziness and hypocrisy from the right, but not the left.

[merh]

19. I agree, but alas, this is considered a Schiavo thread and

therefore is not as important as the other issues that we are facing today (in some minds). :shrug:

This action scares the hell out of me! I want to believe that their Bill of Attainer will not be condoned by SCOTUS. I really want to believe this, I have to!

[Sandpiper]

20. This Legislation may well prove once and for all

Just how deeply Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and William Rehnquist's devotion to States Rights actually runs.

[charlie]

22. Not just those clowns

It's been the raison d'etre for the whole friggin' Repub party since they embraced the Dem segregationists decades ago.

[merh]

23. Most definitely. I would think that the ACLU has already been in

touch with the husband to let him know that they will challenge the resolution. I just can't imagine the state legislators in Floriday allowing this to happen. For that matter, I can't imagine any of the states' legislators sitting still for this.


.

[Sandpiper]

24. For all of the GOP's complaints of "Judicial Legislation"

They've now engaged in something even more dangerous:

Legislative Adjudication

[merh]

26. What I cannot figure out is, what are the dems trading for?

Why are they supporting this?

.

[Clark2008]

27. It is important

But 20 threads on the same issue of arguing crap isn't.

THIS is how we frame the debate - not Terri - but how it effect EVERYONE.

[merh]

31. I agree with you that this is important - but your judgment

of the other threads because they argue "crap" is so wrong. The threads would not exist and would not stay active if people didn't feel strongly about the issues involved.

But for those crappy threads and all of the threads that have been posted on this, I would not have known how involved this all was and would not have had the information necessary to form a legitimate complaint to the proposed resolution. I would have passed it off as a personal matter that should be solved in the courts. These posts provided me all of the background to make an informed judgment on the issues and to realize how dangerous this is.

Posters in these threads have:
Provided me links to all of the state court documents;
Provided me with links to the Florida laws that deals with the issue;
Informed me that the weed signed a law in 1999 that takes the rights away from the family in situations like this and gives it to the hospital;
Provided me with links to that Texas law;
Provided me with the article on Baby Sun;
Provided me with a link to a legal blog that contains some wonderful arguments by the authors of the TX law;

In addition to all of the reference information and background detail, the personal issues involved have been argued and reading the difference sides of this matter, recognizing the volatile nature of the pros and cons, etc. also helps me draft my opposition in a sensitive, yet informed manner.

But for all of the argument and discussion on this case, would the poster of the OP have posted his warning about the bill of attainer?

If we don't like threads we can choose to NOT respond to them, that means to not even get on the thread and ask "why" or ridicule the poster, we just let them drop or put them on ignore.

What you consider crappy argument, others may consider valid and important debates.

The protest posts could have been posted in the Activism Threads and everyone could have gone there to rejoice in the efforts.

[Malva Zebrina]

35. It is a necessary part of working things out

and this issue is not only important as re the Schiavo incident, but has implications for the way the country will be run thereafter.

It will set a precedent for many issues, beyond that of Schiavo and those of us who protest, and posted crap, are working it out in our minds as well as others who posted about it.

It is extremely important as far as the cognitive process goes as well as the historical process. This debacle will be recorded in history as a part of the fascism that Repbulicans arrogantly are trying to impose.

It is just as important as marching, whooping and hollaring at a protest and may even be more important, as protests have accomplished very little thus far but a show of hands that are impotent at best. I do not mean to denigrate the motives of those who go to protest. I am sure they are doing what they think is best, but they should not hold themself above those of us who are truly concerned about the implications of the Schiavo thing. Nor should they encourage cheap denigration or sneering from their loyal followers, toward those of us who are deeply concerned about this.

So please, get off denigrating those who participated and kept track of the Sciavo story who are able to see into the future instead of being stuck in the immediate present.

[Technowitch]

25. They've already given in on Habeas Corpus, torture, and lots more

A Bill of Attainder they can manage without breaking a sweat.

[Cuban_Liberal]

32. It's not abill of attainder

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=bill%20of%20attainder

[merh]

33. So you are a lawyer now?

In essence it is a bill of attainder, it is punishing the guardian of the woman, Mr. Schiavo, and is taking away the rights afforded to him by the State of Florida, thus it is a "bill of attainder". This is about Congress interfering in the operations of the states. Florida law was followed, Florida Courts decided and the federal government has not authority to interfere with the action or to pass this resolution. This is a violation of Congress's sworn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution or does that not matter to you?

This state's rights versus the federal government and is an example of the members of congress violating their sworn oaths to protect and follow the Constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." --10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

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).

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

This is not about Schiavo - this is about the Constitution and the continuing efforts of the repukes to violate the Constitution and to erode our rights and the rights of the states.

You should be upset about that, imho!

[bettyellen]

34. well said, merh.

i know there are a lot of crappy, ignorant posts out there, more than the usual amount of repub/ opertion rescue spin that has appealed to some to DUers. but also more than the usual amount of posts minimizing the outrage this is and telling people to ignore it.
a lot of people don't want to face up to what an outrageous precedent it sets. they fall for the trap of morally judging this woman's marriage as an excuse to allow the govt to step in.

[merh]

37. Thanks -

Let's hold the sons of gun to their oaths of office and demand that they uphold the Constitution! :hi:

[bettyellen]

39. i'm disgusted that they are drafting laws to suit the op rescue crowd.

if they are doing this just to not be called "killers", they don't know ho to explain the issues and take them to the people.
for that, we do not deserve to be sold out like this.
but it seems all the polls are in michael's favor, not the parents. double reason they should not back down.

[merh]

40. Oh, I agree with you -

double reason that the dems find their backbones and stand up for the Constitution and the rights of the states!

Not to mention the sanctity of marriage!

:hi:

[bettyellen]

41. i see a lot of people besmirching the marriage and they

say they wouldn't give their spouses this "power".... well, if you're going have a family, you want to leave yor partner out of the loop? let your parents decide about raising the kids, too? WTF?? a lot of people here seem to have chosen lousy partners and are projecting that on michael.
i would have never left decisions like this to my parents- they are well meaning, but pretty fucking ignorant of medical issues, and easily confused. no thank you, i cut the apron strings a while ago.

[merh]

42. Heck, I know my family all too well...

Years ago I did a living will and a durable power of attorney making a hard nosed, pitt bull of attorney my legal agent should I ever be in this position.

Family all too often allow their emotional needs to override the needs and desires of the "victim" or patient.

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. No, but I'm a law student.

It is not 'in essence' a bill of attainder, either. A bill of attainder is a legislative act pronouncing someone guilty of a crime. No need to be sarcastic, especially since I knew the proper definition of the term.

[merh]

45. I believe the lawyer and the law professor that have posted here

have reasoned it is, in essence, a "bill of attainder", so you might want to finish law school.