Understanding Bills Of Attainder: Constitutional Insight

Bills of attainder are special acts of the legislature that inflict punishment on specific individuals or groups without the protections of a judicial trial. The concept is similar to that of a private bill in the Westminster system, particularly in the United Kingdom, which becomes a private Act upon passage. Bills of attainder are prohibited by the United States Constitution, which only permits the judiciary to determine an individual's guilt or innocence. This prohibition reinforces the idea that the government cannot punish someone without due process, such as a trial. Most common-law nations have prohibited bills of attainder, either explicitly or implicitly.

Explore related products

A Discourse Concerning Treasons, and Bills of Attainder

$22.95

Bills of Attainder: The Constitutional Implications of Congress Legislating Narrowly

$0.99

The Justice of Parliaments on Corrupt Ministers in Impeachments and Bills of Attainder Consider'd ... With Some Particular Remarks on the Cases of the Lords Chancellors Wolsely and Bacon

$29.95

King Charles's Speech in the House of Lords, May the First, 1641. Before he Past the Bill of Attainder Against the Earl of Strafford. With Some Other Curious Pieces

$26.95

Tryals for High-Treason, and Other Crimes with Proceedings on Bills of Attainder, and Impeachments

$26.95

Tryals For High Treason And Other Crimes

$40.95

Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws

The Bill of Attainder Clause has been applied by the Supreme Court to prevent legislatures from punishing people without due process of law. For example, in Ex parte Garland, the Court struck down a statute that required attorneys to swear they had not taken part in the Confederate rebellion before practising in federal courts. The clause was also used to strike down a rider to an appropriations bill that forbade the use of money to pay the salaries of three named individuals.

While bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are related, they are legally distinct. Ex post facto laws are laws that retroactively create a crime where none existed before. The Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from passing such laws, which also protects against legislative overreach and preserves the separation of powers.

The use of bills of attainder by Parliament eventually fell out of favour due to their potential for abuse and violation of legal principles, including the right to due process and the separation of powers. Attainder remained a legal consequence of convictions in courts until 1870, but no bills of attainder have been passed in the UK since 1820. Most common-law nations have prohibited bills of attainder, either explicitly or implicitly.

Bills of Attainder in the US Constitution

Bills of Attainder are prohibited by the US Constitution, which bans Congress and state governments from passing such bills. This is outlined in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, which states that "no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". The US Supreme Court has invalidated laws under the Attainder Clause on five occasions.

A Bill of Attainder is a law that determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an individual or group without a judicial trial and the due process of law. The bills are considered an overreach of legislative power and a violation of the separation of powers, as they assume judicial power. The bills are also seen as a violation of the right to due process, which is a foundational idea in the American justice system.

Historically, Bills of Attainder were used to inflict capital punishment on individuals accused of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in a judicial process. If the punishment was less severe than death, it was referred to as a ''bill of pains and penalties'. The use of these bills fell out of favour due to their potential for abuse and violation of legal principles, with the last use of attainder in the UK being in 1798.

In the US, the Bill of Attainder Clause has been applied by the Supreme Court to prevent the punishment of people without due process. For example, in Ex parte Garland, the Court struck down a statute that required attorneys to take an oath that they had not taken part in the Confederate rebellion before practising in federal courts. The Court deemed this to be an act inflicting punishment on a specific group.

Bills of Attainder in the UK Constitution

Bills of Attainder were used throughout the 18th century in England and were also applied to British colonies. The last use of attainder was in 1798 against Lord Edward FitzGerald for leading the Irish Rebellion of 1798. The House of Lords later passed the Pains and Penalties Bill 1820, which attempted to attaint Queen Caroline, but it was not considered by the House of Commons. No bills of attainder have been passed since 1820 in the UK.

Bills of Attainder are considered a violation of several legal principles, including the right to due process, the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group, and the separation of powers. In a bill of attainder, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of a trial.

The use of these bills eventually fell out of favour due to their potential for abuse. American dissatisfaction with British attainder laws resulted in their being prohibited in the United States Constitution in 1789. The United States Constitution forbids legislative bills of attainder in federal law under Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 ("No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"), and in state law under Article I, Section 10.

In the UK, while bills of attainder are no longer passed, attainder remained a legal consequence of convictions in courts of law until 1870.

Explore related products

Jane Reith - Bill of Attainder

$2.99

Strafford Trial 1641 Nsir Thomas Wentworth 1St Earl Of StraffordS Trial By Parliament Under A Bill Of Attainder 1641 After A Contemporary Engraving By Wenceslaus Hollar Poster Print by (18 x 24)

$31.68

Rights in America, Bills of Attainder and the Ninth Amendment

$0.99

A Discourse Concerning Treasons, and Bills of Attainder. Explaining the True and Ancient Notion of Treason, and Shewing the Natural Justice of Bills of Attainder. The Second Edition

$22.95

The Proceedings Against Sir John Fenwick, Bar. Upon A Bill Of Attainder For High Treason: Together With A Copy Of A Letter Sent By Sir John Fenwick To ... The Paper Delivered By Him To The Sheriffs Of

$24.95

Strafford Trial 1641 Nsir Thomas Wentworth 1St Earl Of StraffordS Trial By Parliament Under A Bill Of Attainder 1641 After A Contemporary Engraving By Wenceslaus Hollar Poster Print by (24 x 36)

$49.51

Bills of Attainder in the Australian Constitution

A bill of attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an individual or group without the protections of a judicial trial. In the Westminster system, a similar concept is referred to as a "private bill", which becomes a private Act upon passage. While private bills can be used for various purposes, they are only considered bills of attainder if they punish a specific person or group.

In the Australian Constitution, there is no specific provision permitting the Commonwealth Parliament to pass bills of attainder. The High Court of Australia has ruled that federal bills of attainder are unconstitutional due to the violation of the separation of powers doctrine. This doctrine states that only a Chapter III court, or a body exercising power derived from the chapter providing for judicial power, can wield judicial power.

However, the state constitutions in Australia have few limitations on government power, and bills of attainder are considered permissible at the state level due to the lack of an entrenched separation of powers. Section 77 of the Australian Constitution allows state courts to be invested with Commonwealth jurisdiction, but any state law that prevents a state court from functioning as a Chapter III court is deemed unconstitutional.

While there are no explicit provisions regarding bills of attainder in the Australian Constitution, the concept of due process and the separation of powers are fundamental principles that protect individuals and groups from legislative overreach.

Bills of Attainder and Legislative Overreach

Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws are two prohibited types of laws that are closely related but legally distinct. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution states that "no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." This clause acts as a safeguard against legislative overreach and reinforces the separation of powers by prohibiting Congress from issuing "bills of attainder."

A bill of attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment, such as capital punishment, upon an individual or group without a judicial trial and the due process of law. It assumes judicial power, pronouncing guilt without the standard procedures and safeguards of a trial. The last use of attainder in the UK was in 1798 against Lord Edward FitzGerald for leading the Irish Rebellion of 1798. The US Constitution banned bills of attainder in 1789 due to American dissatisfaction with British attainder laws.

Ex parte Garland is a notable example of a Supreme Court case where a statute was struck down as a legislative act inflicting punishment on a specific group. The statute required attorneys to take an oath that they had not participated in the Confederate rebellion before practising in federal courts, effectively barring those who had taken part in the rebellion. The Court's decision in this case and others like it have helped define the process of determining whether a law is a bill of attainder.

The prohibition against bills of attainder ensures that the government cannot punish someone without due process, typically in the form of a trial. This protection is extended to both individuals and groups, preventing legislative action that imposes guilt based on inherent characteristics or group involvement. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, proposed by James Madison, further reinforces these rights.

In summary, bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are prohibited by the US Constitution to prevent legislative overreach and maintain the separation of powers. The Constitution guarantees that only the judiciary can determine an individual's guilt or innocence and that any punishment must be preceded by due process, protecting individuals' rights and liberties.

Frequently asked questions