Talk:Bill of attainder

Bill of Rights 1689

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). --Len

Interesting point, Len. I hadn't heard that one before. --StinKerr

I am under the impression that the Westminster Bill of Rights 1689 ended arbitrary attainders. By implication, it only allows attainder bills and court decisions for criminals are convicted by a court, and are currently serving a sentence. It specifically states that forfeiture is an act of punishment. Remand imprisonment is not considered to be a punishment, as the 1689 bill allows it, and demands any bail be fair. There is an important case (S134/2014) before the High Court to make a decision relating to state attainders. The last decision of attainder was in New South Wales 1976 (Dugan v Daily Mirror; Monash Law Reviews, v4 ,Dec 1977). J. Yeldham made a decision of attainder against Dugan, in a civil trial, removing his right to be a plaintiff. Dugan had been sentenced to death in 1951, and was commuted to life, in 1955. Court of Appeals upheld the decision by J. Yeldham. 20yrs later it was revealed Yeldham was a paedophile, and that fact was long known to the police and media, but not to the public.203.213.62.125 (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

An attainder is a bill that directly imposes some jeopardy or punishment (pains and penalties) on a specific individual, group, or organization. Imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture are punishments. A bill that imposes a punishment is generally considered to be a declaration of guilt, even if the bill does not directly mention the guilt or the crime. Some courts have the instrument of attincus. They can make a decision of attainder against certain people, usually those already serving a sentence, denying them the rights of the law. Traditionally the condemned had all their property and titles forfeited to the state.203.213.62.125 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

European Human Rights

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.11.186 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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.Gymnophoria (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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? JackofOz 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OlympiaDiego's post

This was originally posted by 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.

Moved by Metros232 04:43 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed posts from indefinitely-banned user Amorrow, also known as Pinktulip, who has been editing under various IP addresses and sockpuppet identities, including that of OlympiaDiego. I kept the post from Metros232. AnnH ♫ 18:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thomas More

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. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:46, 16 March 2006 (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. 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 Silas Snider (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. -- 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. --Beland 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Some have argued that modern 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. -- Beland 22:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Global perspective

What is the status of bills of attainder in countries outside the US and the UK? -- 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. 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. 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 {{citation needed}} in the article itself. -- Beland 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation added.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.) 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. Wikidea 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. 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.- Matthew238 (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Congress can, and has done so. Richard75 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Parliaments can act in a judicial manner, but generally only in matters involving an elected member during a session, or badmouthing the speaker at any time. Contempt and lying are punished by gaging. What they cannot do is punish in the same way that courts can punish, such as incarceration, fines, and forfeiture.203.213.62.125 (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

'gaging' ? This sounds like some form of cruel and unusual punishment banned by International Law. You don't mean "gagging", by any chance, do you? A motion to apply the gag in order to silence any over-loquacious speaker is established committee procedure. 121.44.9.82 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Bonus Tax

Someone at 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. 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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.236.2 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. Was posting my IP supposed to intimidate me? What other than ex post facto law would YOU call this attempt:

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.

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 (~~~~). Thanks, --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 What Wikipedia is not, especially points 1 and 3, and Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. Wikipedia needs to cite reliable sources in order to be a reliable encyclopedia. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.68.140 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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. 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. 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. 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? 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. Steveozone (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Expatriation Tax

It will be interesting to see how courts treat the Expatriation Tax. --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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winfredtheforth (talk • contribs) 11:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Whomever added that line doesn't understand what a bill of attainder is. --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.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winfredtheforth (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.172.26.90 (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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? -- Beland (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Australian usage

In various states, acts were passed during the 1990s to allow the continued detention of dangerous criminals after their term, which applied to specific individuals such as Gregory Wayne Kable in NSW (alias Garry David in Victoria).

Gregory Wayne Kable and Garry David are different people, with very different criminal histories.

Restructuring the article by jurisdiction

Why shouldn't we organize the article the way it was before this revert? Kroach2 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)