Shouldn't the concept of contributory negligence or some similar concept be employed. These experts are needed to get themselves, and us, out of the mess THEY engineered and got them selves into. They should be appreciate that they are still employed and not in the courts or incarcerated.
Congress however with their righteous indignation is going after them but in this case, I cannot support this legislative effort. It seems to be blatantly punitive and directed as a specific group for punishment. That is a Bill of Attainder which is prohibited by our Constitution. The document which Congress has SWORN to uphold and defend. The legislation flies in the face of the Constitution and James Madison's comments in Federalist Number 44.
Please let us survive this Congress!
Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:
- Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
- Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
- U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
- Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).
No comments:
Post a Comment