The Constitution's Ban On Bills Of Attainder: Why?

The Constitution forbids a bill of attainder as it is considered an overreach of legislative power, undermining the separation of powers and the individual right to a judicial trial. Bills of attainder are seen as a form of legislative punishment without trial, often used to target specific individuals or groups, which is contrary to the foundational idea in the American justice system that the government cannot punish someone without due process. The Framers of the Constitution sought to prohibit this practice, reflecting their dissatisfaction with British attainder laws, which were used to target political enemies and loyalists of the crown. The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting and applying the Bill of Attainder Clause, ensuring that legislatures do not circumvent the courts by punishing people without a fair and impartial trial.

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

The Constitution forbids bills of attainder to protect the separation of powers

The Constitution of the United States forbids bills of attainder to uphold the separation of powers and prevent legislative overreach. The Constitution only permits the judiciary to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent, and to administer punishment.

Bills of attainder were used in England during the 16th and 18th centuries to single out and punish the political enemies of the crown, often by death. The American colonies also used bills of attainder to punish individuals loyal to the English crown. However, the Framers of the Constitution were dissatisfied with these attainder laws, and they were banned in the Constitution in 1787.

The Constitution's ban on bills of attainder reinforces the separation of powers by forbidding the legislature from performing judicial or executive functions. The Supreme Court has applied the Bill of Attainder Clause to prevent legislatures from punishing people without due process of law. The Court has held that a bill of attainder must meet three criteria: it must single out an identified individual or group, impose a form of punishment, and bar any trial in court for the alleged wrongdoing.

The Bill of Attainder Clause has been used by the Supreme Court to strike down laws that infringe on the rights of specific groups, such as members of the Communist Party, and to protect individuals from legislative acts that inflict punishment without a trial. The Court has also emphasised that legislation does not violate the Bill of Attainder Clause simply by placing legal burdens on a specific individual or group.

Bills of attainder are forbidden because they deny the right to a judicial trial

Bills of attainder are prohibited by the United States Constitution, which was ratified in 1787. The 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. The fact that they are banned even under state law reflects the importance that the Framers attached to this issue.

Bills of attainder are seen as a violation of the right to a judicial trial. They are considered to undermine the separation of powers by allowing the legislature to perform judicial functions. In bill of attainder cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial. The legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, governed solely by what it deems to be political necessity or expediency. This can result in an irresponsible exercise of power, influenced by unreasonable fears or unfounded suspicions.

The Supreme Court has applied the Bill of Attainder Clause to prevent legislatures from circumventing the courts and punishing people without due process of law. The Court has interpreted the clause broadly, banning not only legislation imposing a death sentence but also other forms of punishment on specific persons without a trial. For example, in United States v. Brown, the Court held that a federal statute making it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer of a labor union was a bill of attainder.

In addition to reinforcing the separation of powers and the right to a trial, the prohibition of bills of attainder also embodies the concept of due process, which is further protected by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. By prohibiting bills of attainder, the Constitution ensures that the government cannot punish someone without due process, which usually takes the form of a trial. This reflects the Framers' commitment to personal security and individual rights.

They are contrary to the first principles of the social compact

Bills of attainder are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, which is a fundamental agreement between the people and their government. This social contract, as described by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, establishes a framework for a just and legitimate political community.

At its core, the social compact recognises the inherent equality and dignity of all individuals.

Explore related products

Jane Reith - Bill of Attainder

$2.99

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

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

$36.95

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 (18 x 24)

$31.68

Bills of attainder are banned to protect personal security and private rights

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. The fact that they were banned under both federal and state law reflects the importance that the Framers attached to this issue. James Madison opined that it was appropriate for the Framers to ban the practice in the federal constitution, adding a "constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights".

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Bill of Attainder Clause to prevent legislatures from circumventing the courts and punishing people without due process of law. The Court has held that a bill of attainder constitutes a law that singles out an identified individual or group, imposes punishment without trial, and bars any trial in court for the alleged wrongdoing. This interpretation has been applied in several cases, including United States v. Lovett in 1946, where the Court struck down a rider to an appropriations bill that forbade the use of money to pay the salaries of three named individuals deemed "subversive".

The prohibition against bills of attainder reinforces the separation of powers by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial or executive functions, as a bill of attainder necessarily does. It also embodies the concept of due process, which is reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

They are forbidden because they impose punishment without trial

Bills of attainder are prohibited in the United States Constitution, which expressly forbids both the federal government and the states from enacting them. The Constitution of Australia also contains a similar provision.

The reason for this prohibition is that bills of attainder impose punishment without trial. They are used to single out and punish individuals or groups without the protections of a judicial trial. This is contrary to the concept of due process, which is a foundational idea in the American justice system. The Supreme Court has held that a statute constitutes a bill of attainder if it applies with specificity and imposes punishment without trial.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Bill of Attainder Clause to prevent legislatures from circumventing the courts and punishing people without due process of law. This interpretation reinforces the separation of powers by forbidding the legislature from performing judicial or executive functions.

The Bill of Attainder Clause has been applied in several cases to invalidate laws that impose punishment without trial. For example, in United States v. Brown, the Court held that a federal statute making it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer of a labor union was a bill of attainder. In another case, Cummings v. Missouri, the Court struck down a state constitutional amendment requiring certain professionals to take an "Oath of Loyalty," as it punished a specific group that had taken part in the rebellion and could not truthfully take the oath.

Frequently asked questions