Talk:Bill of attainder: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:14, 28 January 2024

It is requested that an image or photograph of Bill of attainder be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Churchill

The article states : "British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had then advocated a policy of summary execution with the use of an Act of Attainder to circumvent legal obstacles." Shouldn't a statement like that come with a reference? This Guardian article is the closest I could find and it doesn't feel like sufficient original evidence. Cholten99 (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two references for this, see [30][31] at the end of the paragraph. But here's another: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nuremberg_Trials

Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

American usage question

It's seemed to me that the 'Murrican usage of BofA has been generalized even further, to bills which (whether naming a person or not) are intended to apply specifically to a single individual. Is that in fact the case, or is there some other constitutional prohibition against that that I'm forgetting? --Baylink 22:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there any basis for claiming that the Terri Schiavo bill has some bill of attainder properties? Preisler 17:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bill and an Act

I think this article contains a confusion between a bill of attainder and an act of attainder. It is probably best explained with a famous example. Parliament passed a bill of attainder on Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford in 1641.

At first Parliament tried to have Strafford impeached for treason. Only after that looked likely to fail did John Pym persuade Parliament drew up a bill of attainder. Before the bill became law (an act), it had to be assented to by King Charles I. At first he refused to assent, but after Strafford advised him to do so,[1] under pressure from Parliament and the London mobs Charles did.[2] Strafford was executed, but for the rest of his life Charles felt guilty for assassinating to the bill and and said in his gallows speech just before he was executed in 1649 "That an unjust Sentence [on Strafford] that I suffered for to take effect, is punished now by an unjust Sentence upon me".[3].

If Charles had refused to assent to the bill, then it would not have been law and Strafford could not have been executed lawfully. This is why Charles carried the guilt of his assenting to it to his death. In the UK a monarch never refused to assent to any bill in the 20th century, however the President of the United States fairly often vetoes a bill passed by Congress, which is similar to a British monarch refusing assent as stops a Congressional Bill becoming an Act of Congress even if both houses have passed it. -- PBS (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

"Unlike the United States Constitution, there is no specific provision prohibiting the Commonwealth Government from passing bills of attainder."

Because there is no clause allowing the Commonwealth Parliament to pass such bills, they are unconstitutional. Grassynoel (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Impeachment Senate Trial #2

It has been argued by many legal scholars (chief among them Professor Alan Dershowitz [4]) that the second Trump impeachment trial in the Senate was, in essence, a Bill of Attainder, as Trump was a civilian at the time that he was tried. Schlice (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{WikiProject Law|class=B}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
+{{WikiProject Law|importance=mid}}
-{{reqphoto|law and crime topics}}
+}}
+{{Image requested|law and crime topics}}
+{{Archives|auto=long|search=yes |bot=MiszaBot}}
-Ran out of time. Worth mentioning in this article that asset forfeiture laws are essentially bills of attainder, and that (NPOV HERE) the reparations debate, as currently framed in the US, is also a demand for a bill of attainder--punishing individuals for "slavery" who have never been convicted of the crime (not to mention, who have never owned any slaves). --[[User:LenBudney|Len]]
+{{User:MiszaBot/config
+| algo=old(90d)
+| archive=Talk:Bill of attainder/Archive %(counter)d
+| counter=1
+| maxarchivesize=75K
+| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
+| minthreadsleft=5
+| minthreadstoarchive=1
+}}
+== Churchill ==
-Interesting point, Len. I hadn't heard that one before. --[[User:StinKerr|StinKerr]]
+The article states : "British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had then advocated a policy of summary execution with the use of an Act of Attainder to circumvent legal obstacles." Shouldn't a statement like that come with a reference? [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/26/britain-execution-nuremberg-nazi-leaders This Guardian article] is the closest I could find and it doesn't feel like sufficient original evidence.
-==European Human Rights==
+[[User:Cholten99|Cholten99]] ([[User talk:Cholten99|talk]]) 23:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
+:There are two references for this, see [30][31] at the end of the paragraph. But here's another:  https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nuremberg_Trials
-It seams to me european law on human rights as per he human rights act (1998) invalidates parliamentary soverignty on this issue. As the UK parliament cannot repeal without leaving the EU this would make the UK unable to enforce such a bill of attainer.   <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/145.116.11.186|145.116.11.186]] ([[User talk:145.116.11.186|talk]]) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:Cheers. [[User:History Lunatic|History Lunatic]] ([[User talk:History Lunatic|talk]]) 05:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic
-:On the other hand, prisoners have their rights to free movement, family etc removed by will of the Crown. This article discusses international uses but doesn't really say whether it's still a potential legal instrument in the UK, perhaps something that needs addressing here.[[User:Gymnophoria|Gymnophoria]] ([[User talk:Gymnophoria|talk]]) 11:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 == American usage question ==
@@ Line 18: / Line 30: @@
 Is there any basis for claiming that the Terri Schiavo bill has some bill of attainder properties? [[User:Preisler|Preisler]] 17:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
+== Bill and an Act ==
-==Henry VIII==
-Was King Henry VIII the first monarch to delegate Royal Assent in relation to bills of attainder, or to any legislation at all?  [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
+I think this article contains a confusion between a [[bill of attainder]] and an [[act of attainder]]. It is probably best explained with a famous example. Parliament passed a [[bill of attainder]] on [[Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford]] in 1641.
+At first Parliament tried to have Strafford impeached for treason. Only after that looked likely to fail did [[John Pym]] persuade Parliament drew up a bill of  attainder. Before the bill became law (an act), it had to be assented to by King [[Charles I of England|Charles I]]. At first he refused to assent, but after Strafford advised him to do so,[http://www.unterstein.net/or/docs/Strafford.pdf] under pressure from Parliament and the London mobs Charles did.[http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/civilwar/g3/cs2/s4/g3cs2s4c.htm] Strafford was executed, but for the rest of his life Charles felt guilty for assassinating to the bill and and said in his gallows speech just before he was executed in 1649 "That an unjust Sentence [on Strafford] that I suffered for to take effect, is punished now by an unjust Sentence upon me".[https://books.google.com/books?id=CMVTBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA61].
-== OlympiaDiego's post ==
-This was originally posted by [[User:OlympiaDiego|OlympiaDiego]] to the main article.  This type of commentary belongs on talk pages, not on main pages of articles, please confine further posts of this nature to the talk area only.
+If Charles had refused to assent to the bill, then it would not have been law and Strafford could not have been executed lawfully. This is why Charles carried the guilt of his assenting to it to his death. In the UK a monarch never refused to assent to any bill in the 20th century, however the President of the United States [[List of United States presidential vetoes|fairly often vetoes a bill]] passed by Congress, which is similar to a British monarch refusing assent as stops a Congressional Bill becoming an [[Act of Congress]] even if both houses have passed it. -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 17:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
-{{selfref|That means no reverting of the work by unstudied dummies or admins. Wikipedians willing to engage in serious legal scholarship or those providing very conservative (i.e. inclusionist) copyedit only please.  No massive reverts or deletes.  Feel free to also apply your skills to the massive amount of referenced material, in particular, the recent Bill of Attainder case law. It is those vital examples that bring this article to life and help to illustrate how this concept, rather dull though it may appear to the unstudied, is vibrant and applicable today in a time when mass media can effect all kinds of perversions if it is equipped with a pretty face or is otherwise prepared to effectively appeal to one of man's [[Seven deadly sins|capital vices]]. The goal is to bring this article and the recent case law to Featured Article status via the established Wikipeida process while avoiding those interventionist trigger-happy admins, or at least the ones who know zero about law, the long arc of civilization or, for that matter, adulthood.  Of course, intelligent input from both genders is welcome.  It is a tragedy for the article that [[Catharine MacKinnon]] is too busy to help out.  Please draw inspiration from her miraculous career and prepare the correct demeanor in your minds before you proceed.}}
+== Australia ==
-Moved by [[User:Metros232|Metros232]] 04:43 11 March 2006 (UTC)
+"Unlike the United States Constitution, there is no specific provision prohibiting the Commonwealth Government from passing bills of attainder."
-I have removed posts from indefinitely-banned user [[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]], also known as [[User:Pinktulip|Pinktulip]], who has been editing under [[Template:Pinktulip|various IP addresses]] and [[:Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Amorrow|sockpuppet identities]], including that of [[User:OlympiaDiego|OlympiaDiego]]. I kept the post from [[User:Metros232|Metros232]]. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 18:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
+Because there is no clause allowing the Commonwealth Parliament to pass such bills, they are unconstitutional. [[User:Grassynoel|Grassynoel]] ([[User talk:Grassynoel|talk]]) 09:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
-==Thomas More==
+== Trump Impeachment Senate Trial #2 ==
-AFAICT Thomas More was not tried and executed with a bill of attainder. Elizabeth Barton was executed under such a bill and More had to explain his actions as a potential sharer in her guilt. But his explanation was successfull and he was not found guilty under that attainder. He was eventually to be executed but I think that was for refusing to take the oath under the [[Act of Succession]] which was treason ---->Chop,Chop. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
+It has been argued by many legal scholars (chief among them Professor Alan Dershowitz [https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-you-cant-try-an-impeached-former-president-11611167113]) that the second Trump impeachment trial in the Senate was, in essence, a Bill of Attainder, as Trump was a civilian at the time that he was tried. [[User:Schlice|Schlice]] ([[User talk:Schlice|talk]]) 22:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
-== Context as experimental feature ==
-I'm pretty sure that this section is original research. In addition, it doesn't cite any sources, and it has a strong POV about a particular interpration of history.
-I'm tagging it as npov-section, and will be deleting it shortly. [[User:Jaysbro|Jaysbro]] 18:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-Its been 9 days, and no cite is in evidence. I'm deleting the section under [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:BOLD]] [[User:Simonfairfax|Silas Snider]] [[User_talk:Simonfairfax|(talk)]] 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
-== Relationship to Legislative Intervention ==
-I removed the following text, because it appears to be original research, and is in any case barely comprehensible. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-:''To elaborate, "bill of attainder" can be eventually discovered in the crude tool of legislative intervention if such intervention is used to cut the [[Gordian knot]] of a difficult court case.  In fact, it is nearly impossible to grant one side of a competently contested court case a privilege without at the same time penalizing the other side, thereby making most such interventions ''ipso facto'' unconstitutional.  Surprisingly, this legal nit sometimes either escapes the attention of or sometimes is deliberately ignored by legislators; this can apply even to those legislators who are well-trained and otherwise conscientious lawyers.  When legislators make such errors, as demonstrated by the Courts, only the constituency, or more generally the People, if they can comprehend the issues and maintain the attention span to remember such errors, have the power to take more decisive remedial action, and even then, provided that the current government of the United States stands and that all other legal proscriptions are obeyed, only at the polling booth, or upon other legitimate aspects of the re-election campaign.
-== Removed text from U.S. section ==
-:''One sees the applicability of the ''All Seaons'' excerpt in the plight of [[David Souter]] and the [[Lost Liberty Hotel]].''
-I'm not sure what "All Seaons" is, or what "excerpt" is being referred to here, but this case is an example of [[Eminent domain]], which is fairly different.  I've added that article to a new "See also" section. --[[User:Beland|Beland]] 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-:Some have argued that modern [[search and seizure|asset forfeiture]] laws are essentially bills of attainder.
-That is very strange.  I am wondering whether this is original research or not, so I'm removing it until sources for this can be cited.  There are plenty of procedural laws which may or may not provide due process to everyone's satisfaction, but that seems quite different from actually targeting particular individuals in a law.  Perhaps a case could be made for reparations as bills of attainder, but I'd also like to see some third-party sources for that. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-== Global perspective ==
-{{globalize}}
-What is the status of bills of attainder in countries outside the US and the UK? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 22:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-Canada is now included. Still three countries is a very small sample,
-and I appreciate the request to make this article more globally representative.
-[[Special:Contributions/198.144.192.42|198.144.192.42]] ([[User talk:198.144.192.42|talk]]) 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Robert Maas, tinyurl.com/uh3t for contact info
-== why is this page still protected? ==
-no edits for 1.5 months, no discussion of this on the talk page. [[User:Benwing|Benwing]] 05:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-== please add citation needed tags. ==
-especially after claiming that the irish parliament told someone to break out of their cell in the Bastille to face sentencing in England, or else risk being drawn and quartered.  Cite that bullshit!
-:So tagged. You can do this yourself in the future by writing <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> in the article itself. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-::Citation added.[[User:Xaa|Xaa]] 08:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
-==Attainder==
-Should the article at [[Attainder]] be merged with this?
-Was the 1870 Act retroactive - did heirs to persons previously attainted automatically have their claims "reactivated"? (If not, this means the "heirs of [[George, Duke of Clarence]] being the rightful monarchs of England" claim is invalid.) [[User:Jackiespeel|Jackiespeel]] 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-== Parliamentary Sovereignty ==
-This article suggests in the intro that treason charges without trial are impossible to get rid of in the UK, because our Parliament is sovereign. This is really very stupid. In the United States (or anywhere else) you could change the constitution, and pass whatever nasty laws you wanted to. You'd need a special voting majority, but it's perfectly possible. In the UK we think that Parliamentary sovereignty is quite a good idea, because it means that a democratic consensus forms over time over what should be in law and not. It is as inconceivable in the UK that a Parliament would go back on the right to trial (probably moreso than under a cheap Republican administration) as it is in the US to amend the constitution. The difference is that we place trust in the electorate, and therefore in democracy and the rest of the world (whose system of government, incidentally, is modelled on Westminster) does not. The authors of this article place trust in the judges. That's why it's undemocratic, and that's why I'm going to change this rather stupid introductory paragraph, unless someone can conjur up a reason not to. '''<font color="red">[[User:Wikidea|Wik]]</font><font color="gold">[[User:Wikidea|idea]]</font>''' 15:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-:By no means every government is modelled on the Westminster system. I do have some sympathy with part of your comment, though: it clearly isn't "fundamentally impossible" to abolish attainder in the UK; it's only impossible to do so whilst parliamentary sovereignty holds. Although astoundingly unlikely, it would be possible for Parliament to vote to bring in a US-style system of government and to abolish its own sovereignty. [[Special:Contributions/86.135.7.189|86.135.7.189]] ([[User talk:86.135.7.189|talk]]) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
-==Contempt of Parliament==
-What is it called when parliament has a trial to convict and punish someone for [[contempt of parliament]], or other such things? Congress can't do this for [[Contempt of Congress]], maybe because of the Bill of Attainder prohibition, also because separation of powers, and being a judge in ones own case ([[Nemo iudex in causa sua]]. Is it [[Trial at bar]]? This also relates to [[impeachment]].- [[User:Matthew238|Matthew238]] ([[User talk:Matthew238|talk]]) 07:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
-:Congress can, and has done so. [[User:Richard75|Richard75]] ([[User talk:Richard75|talk]]) 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
-==Bonus Tax==
-Someone at [[Special:Contributions/67.34.237.122|67.34.237.122]] keeps adding language declaring the recent bonus tax passed in the U.S. a bill of attainder. Without any citations, this violates [[WP:OR]] and I've removed his latest addition. [[User:Reydeyo|Reydeyo]] ([[User talk:Reydeyo|talk]]) 03:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
-My parents were ranting about this last night - apparently some talking head on Fox News was stating his opinion that the measure is a bill of attainder (which it clearly isn't).  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.202.236.2|74.202.236.2]] ([[User talk:74.202.236.2|talk]]) 14:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->
-:Oh, please.  Was posting my IP supposed to intimidate me?  What other than ex post facto law would YOU call this attempt:
-:<blockquote>
-:The House measure was approved on a 328-93 vote and would impose a 90% surtax on bonuses granted to employees who earn more than $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion from the government's financial rescue program. The bonus tax, if approved by the Senate and signed into law, would be retroactive to Dec. 31, 2008.
-:</blockquote>
-:And there is, factually, absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Obama, Geithner, Dodd et al. knew all about those bonuses long before they were paid out.
-::I've reformatted this discussion to comply with [[WP:TALK]].  However please restrict your discussions to ways to improve the article, not US domestic policy (or anything else).  The posting of the IP address was done automatically by a bot; we try to have everyone sign their posts using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).  Thanks, --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] ([[User talk:TeaDrinker|talk]]) 18:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
-::I'm not trying to intimidate you. I'm just trying to point out that you can't insert that into Wikipedia without citing any sources. See [[Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought|What Wikipedia is not]], especially points 1 and 3, and [[WP:SOAP|Wikipedia is not a Soapbox]]. Wikipedia needs to cite reliable sources in order to be a reliable encyclopedia. [[User:Reydeyo|Reydeyo]] ([[User talk:Reydeyo|talk]]) 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
-The taxation of the AIG bonuses is not a bill of attainder. Nor does it violate the ex post facto clause. This is not an arguable point among constitutional scholars. It is simply a tax targeted at a fairly small group. The tax code is full of this sort of thing. It does not criminalize anything, nor does it declare anyone guilty of a crime.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.176.68.140|71.176.68.140]] ([[User talk:71.176.68.140|talk]]) 23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-Actually, the very definition of a Bill of Attainder is "a tax targeted at a fairly small group." And there is considerable debate regarding the constitutionality of the U.S. House Bill passed on 19 March. Congressman Ron Paul stated it was unconstitutional in his remarks on the House floor. See YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKiJh-BOLd0. If members of the House did not consider AIG executives who received bonuses "guilty" of something, they would not have passed the law targeting them. Clearly, the House bill is unconstitutional and is a Bill of Attainder, which may be why President Obama is now backing off from his support of the House measure (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy). Two key paragraphs from that AP article are these: [Obama, a law professor-turned-chief executive, said during an interview broadcast Sunday that he does not like the idea of "passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals" or using the tax code to punish people. "Let's
-see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional, that uphold our basic principles of fairness, but don't hamper us from getting the banking system back on track," Obama said on CBS' "60 Minutes."]
-It is obvious Obama is rethinking the House measure and realizing the groundswell of criticism regarding the implications of passing a bill clearly prohibited by the Constitution. [[User:ForAbsintheFriends|ForAbsintheFriends]] ([[User talk:ForAbsintheFriends|talk]]) 13:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
-This neither a ex post facto law nor bill of attainder, because it doesn't
-say the recipients committed a crime. It merely says the people who drew
-up the contract to give the bonuses made a mistake and want the money
-back now. It is a law impairing a contract, which is unconstitutional in
-Wisconson, but AFAIK it's not uncostitutional for Congress. But a more
-precise term should be "Indian giver" law. Sorry, no racial or cultural
-prejudice, just the slang term I learned as a child. And again, AFAIK there
-is no Constitutional prohibition of Indian giver laws.
-:Bills of attainder are any bill of punishment targeting a specific, small, group. The bonus tax bill was obviously targeted just at the AIG executives, and was designed to punish them, therefore is a bill of attainder. Besides, it is a referenced statement and therefore valid for wikipedia. Removing it because you disagree with the conclusion is a violation of original research. [[Special:Contributions/99.67.64.169|99.67.64.169]] ([[User talk:99.67.64.169|talk]]) 19:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
-Somebody please contact Pat Robertson of the 700 Club and tell him that
-he was almost correct but slightly wrong, and tell him my new term.
-I think he'd appreciate the term and enjoy correcting himself to the new term.
-[[Special:Contributions/198.144.192.42|198.144.192.42]] ([[User talk:198.144.192.42|talk]]) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Robert Maas, tinyurl.com/uh3t for contact info
-==Image==
-Can we get a photo of an actual bill of attainder, either issued by the U.S. goverment, the government of one of the 13 colonies, or by the British colonial government? [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] ([[User talk:Badagnani|talk]]) 19:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
-== Eminent Domain ==
-In what way is the concept of "eminent domain" related to "bill of attainder?"  This "see also" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, except perhaps as a complaint over perceived injustice in the manner in which eminent domain is exercised.  I'd suggest that the section should be removed.  [[User:Steveozone|Steveozone]] ([[User talk:Steveozone|talk]]) 02:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
-== Expatriation Tax ==
-It will be interesting to see how courts treat the [[Expatriation Tax]]. --[[User:Pawyilee|Pawyilee]] ([[User talk:Pawyilee|talk]]) 02:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
-== (Some historians include the British Monarchy, but current events suggest that use by the executive is not excessive or abusive. ==
-What current events suggest this? How many historians think the monarch was abusive as well? This just looks confusing to me.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Winfredtheforth|Winfredtheforth]] ([[User talk:Winfredtheforth|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Winfredtheforth|contribs]]) 11:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:Concur. Whomever added that line doesn't understand what a bill of attainder is. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] ([[User talk:Coolcaesar|talk]]) 12:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
-Well I reverted it. Looking at it a second time I suspect He was trying to make some sort of statement on Anwar al-Awlaki.(If such is the case please discuss it here.)  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Winfredtheforth|Winfredtheforth]] ([[User talk:Winfredtheforth|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Winfredtheforth|contribs]]) 17:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-I don't know who considered a monarch's usage of attainder to be abusive, but the original wording already had that meaning and I just preserved that meaning.  Current events show that usage by the executive branch is not abusive or excessive.  However, since that wording change caused confusion, I did not repeat that change this time.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/210.172.26.90|210.172.26.90]] ([[User talk:210.172.26.90|talk]]) 00:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-== Update ==
-The phrase "As of 1984" makes that section seem dated.  What about counting and listing all the overturns up to 2010, along with notable near misses? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)