https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1362454217152200714
Is this constitutional?
Like, I know that writs of attainder are unconstitutional.
Can Congress really pass a law that is in essence “fuck that very specific dude right there even though he’s technically not be convicted of anything.”
This feels like a civil rights violation.
It really is petty as shit though.
Especially right now as millions are without power and people are freezing to death for this bullshit to be consuming the Federal Government’s attention.
Any lawyers want to weigh in on this?
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like a justification for regicide, since they see themselves as reigning over the rest of us.
I’m not a lawyer but I am a student of the Constitution — have been ever since I read the Federalist Papers cover to cover as part of my preparation for the naturalization test.
My answer is hell no, this isn’t legal. It’s a bill of attainder, which is illegal both for the US and for any state legislature. It’s one of the few things that’s explicitly outlawed not just once but twice.
I have no doubt they’ll say it’s NOT a bill of attainder because it doesn’t target Trump by name, and would apply to any “twice-impeached president”.
If it’s left to stand, once patriots take back Congress we should impeach Obama twice.
House GOP should amend it to say that twice-serving Speakers of the House from California are ineligible any public office once they lose the Speaker position. It should also make it a felony for any such person to eat ice cream.
Hey, it doesn’t name anyone in particular, so it must not be a “writ of attainder”, and is therefore Constitutional. Right?
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV.
1. Can the Democrats do that? Of course they can.
2. Is it legal or Constitutional? No and hell no.
3. Does that matter to Democrats. No and hell no.
4. It’s called “Expo Facto” and if a court follows the LAW, it would never stand up.
Not to nitpick, but the term is “ex post facto”, and yes, such laws are explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.
Then again, the Second Amendment explicitly says “shall not be infringed” and the Fourth says “shall not be violated”, yet the courts have allowed many, many exceptions for violations and infringements.
All Chief Justice Roberts has to do is declare that Donald Trump doesn’t have standing to challenge it because he’s not specifically named by the bill, and it will stand.
I still say that if the precedent is set and allowed to stand, the GOP should be proposing bills that will effectively ban any and all Dems and RINOs from public office, public recognition, and burial with honors, describing specific people but without naming any names.
I mean, how specific is “twice-serving Speaker of the U.S. House from California, born during a global conflict the United States hadn’t yet entered”? There must be tons of people like that, right?
Yep, typing without my glasses
Right!
Look at the bright side, the Dems are spending time and power on petty BS instead of gun control, diesel engine bans or a myriad of other crap. If Donald Trump is a total fixation for Pelosi then he’s doing us a service
“…he’s doing us a service. Again.”
Since when have Democrats cared about the Constitution?
If this actually stands Trump should change the name of his hotels to “F##K Nancy Pelosi.”
I can’t think of a Democrat who has cared about the Constitution since Thomas Jefferson. Then again, it’s hard to find a Republican who does, either. Some of them do occasionally, like various conservatives. One or two do much of the time (Rand Paul and Ron Paul come to mind). But none of them do so consistently, and I suspect that has been true for the party’s entire history.
To quote Darth Sidious: “I will make it legal.”
Hm. Time to finally watch The Purge and start taking notes maybe.
J.Kb, how’s the K-dozer project coming along? I had a question, by the way … Any chance of getting a boom arm with a mine flail on it?
If this bill is called “No Glory for Hate Act” and bars internment in the National Cemetery, it follows then that Congress feels that being buried at Arlington is a sign of Glory.
This means that Bill Clinton, once dead, will be buried in a “Glory Hole,” which seems oddly correct.
Ouch. That goes nicely with that “funnies” picture of AOC. 🙂
First: Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 is “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”.
Second: This is a non judicial determinations of guilt of Mr. Trump. Since he was NOT convicted in the Senate this is probably moot, but I bet it helps some folks raise campaign money so they can spend it on old media; or relatives if they have some in the line of work.
My father and mother, two uncles and their wives are buried at Arlington. I find this extremely offensive. What next? Will they prevent soldiers whose views disagree with theirs from being buried there? Despicable.
OK. This is neither a bill of attainer nor an ex post facto law; both of those apply to punishments in criminal cases. Not being buried at Arlington is not a punishment for crime.
Is it thus “legal?” Probably, though as posters have noted, Congress doesn’t worry much about legal or constitutional anyway. It’s discrimination without a rational basis, though generally the law does not bar discrimination except for the usual list of barred reasons – i.e. sex, race, religion, etc.
Is it spiteful and nasty? Of course; that’s the hardcore base of the Demo party.
I should note that “private bills,” which benefit a specific person or entity, are a thing, and are not that uncommon. Is this “punishment?” No. As noted, there is no right to be buried at Arlington. Is it “ex post facto?” No, by definition. It does not make illegal an act that occurred prior to the passage of the law.
It’s just stupid. And that’s what the Democrats specialize in right now. It’s public relations (and it sucks at even that); it has no chance of passage.
As noted above, be thankful they’re not doing more “productive” work. They’ll get around to f***ing you over next week rather than this one.
And yes, I am a lawyer.
Re “is it legal” — does it match any of the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8? I don’t think so. If not, the answer by definition is “no”.
Note also that it’s not just about Arlington, that’s not even the main point. It also includes stuff like taking away his pension, and the office services always granted to former presidents. I assume that also means no “presidential library”, which probably translates to “we’ll bury all records of Trump’s work so no one can see them”.
Is “ex post facto” law a term limited to criminal law? The Latin words don’t say that, but I guess lawyers can redefine Latin to mean what they want it to mean. But if that’s the argument, you can apply the next clause, prohibiting impairment of contracts.
Don’t even get me started on the entire legal profession. The Supreme Court says that it gets to decide what is constitutional and what isn’t. It bases this upon its own decision (Marbury v Madison) where the court took the power for itself.
How about a plain reading of the founding documents, where we the people are the ones who grant the power to the entire government, for the express purpose of protecting our rights. When they no longer do that, it is within our rights to revoke that power.
I’m sick of one party or group using that power to punish their opponents. Perhaps it is time that we the people remind them of that. We are the ultimate authority, and the plain reading of the Constitution says that the legislature isn’t supposed to use their powers to go after individual citizens. All of the legal maneuvering and parsing of words to the contrary while claiming that it all depends on what the word “is” means is legalistic bullshit.
“Shall not be infringed” is a great example. We all know what it means, but people keep trying to insert language into that sentence where there is none. I’m tired of it, and so are many others.
We just want to be left alone.