Question about Bills of Attainder

[Orrex]

The Constitution prohibits Bills of Attainder, does it not? If I understand correctly, these are laws enacted to apply expressly to one particular person. Three questions:

1. Is my understanding (simply stated above) correct?

2. Does this apply to corporations and similar entities (ie., "artificial persons"), or just to actual people?

3. Need they be explicitly person-specific? If I'm the only guy in the country who has or will ever have three arms, can Congress pass a law applying only to three-armed people?

Thanks for your thoughts and insights.

[JohnLocke]

1. Links that may help you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

[Orrex]

2. Thanks--I should have thought of that. (nt)

[Tamyrlin79]

3. basically, that's right...

But, I don't think that it HAS to be an individual person, per se. It could just be a bill for an individual case. For example, a bill that specifically granted terri schiavo's parents a right to appeal to the feds would be a bill of attainder. But, a bill that granted all such cases a right to appeal would not be. Essentially, the law are supposed to be generally applicable to all, equally applied, etc. Bills of attainder go against that notion, because after the case for which they are passed is history, such a law, even though still on the books, would be of no real force or effect for the rest of the population or future similar cases. As for corporations, they could pass a law, but it would have to be applicable to all corporations similarly situated, and can't just be passed for one. For example, you could nationalize the oil industry, but it would be a bill of attainder to single out Exxon-Mobile.

the 'three-armed people' example you give above doesn't apply... exactly. The government can make classifications, but they would have to have a good reason for making that sort of differentiation. For example, laws protecting the elderly from mistreatment creates a group classification that is a good thing, while laws that force blacks to live in different schools are not a good classification. The former protects from discrimination, while the latter legally requires discrimination. I believe it would be the same for three-armed people.


I'm no lawyer, but that is my understanding of how all that works.

[Spinzonner]

4. Then there was the SCOTUS "Judgment of Attainder"

that was specifically crafted to the needs of George W Bush in December 2000.

So, you expect that Republican-dominated court to actually enforce such a Constitutional constraint ?