6 ms·

It's routine for riders to be put on bills to benefit the rich or big business - I'd like to see a rider to make a law to throw this guy in jail and take his mo

by MrTonyD 11y ago

It's routine for riders to be put on bills to benefit the rich or big business - I'd like to see a rider to make a law to throw this guy in jail and take his money. Our society is supposed to serve our community - and this fellow has proven his disdain for our community values. Some claim that he is doing nothing illegal - well, we should change that - it should be illegal to act against our society.

dragonwriter 11y ago
What you suggest is a bill of attainder, and is expressly prohibited by the Constitution, for very good reasons.
- MrTonyD 11y ago
  It's fine to quote theory, but there are plenty of examples of laws passed which apply to a single person or small group. My impression is that they are written in such a way as to make them seem to apply to a general case - which just happens to only apply to one person.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Laws that practically apply to a small group or single person are not unconstitutional as a class, even in theory. So the practice you point to.is irrelevant. Laws which declare a particular person a criminal and/or impose criminal penalties like fines or imprisonment on them, OTOH, are unconstitutional, and that's not just theory that is neglected in practice.
    - MrTonyD 11y ago
      You say: "Laws that practically apply to a small group or single person are not unconstitutional as a class" - but isn't that exactly what would be needed to define the actions of this scumbag as illegal and punishable by fines and imprisonment? This doesn't seem irrelevant to me. I've read some of the laws protecting billionaires. And they can be very specific, applying only to people who live in a particular town and who have entered specific agreements. So, if we can use these laws to absolve the rich, we should be able to use them to define criminals against our society.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        You could ban the things he's done, and throw him in jail if he does them again. You can't throw him in jail based on new laws for things he's already done (post-hoc law), or based merely on who he is (bill of attainder).

by MrTonyD 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

What you suggest is a bill of attainder, and is expressly prohibited by the Constitution, for very good reasons.

MrTonyD 11y ago
It's fine to quote theory, but there are plenty of examples of laws passed which apply to a single person or small group. My impression is that they are written in such a way as to make them seem to apply to a general case - which just happens to only apply to one person.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Laws that practically apply to a small group or single person are not unconstitutional as a class, even in theory. So the practice you point to.is irrelevant. Laws which declare a particular person a criminal and/or impose criminal penalties like fines or imprisonment on them, OTOH, are unconstitutional, and that's not just theory that is neglected in practice.
  - MrTonyD 11y ago
    You say: "Laws that practically apply to a small group or single person are not unconstitutional as a class" - but isn't that exactly what would be needed to define the actions of this scumbag as illegal and punishable by fines and imprisonment? This doesn't seem irrelevant to me. I've read some of the laws protecting billionaires. And they can be very specific, applying only to people who live in a particular town and who have entered specific agreements. So, if we can use these laws to absolve the rich, we should be able to use them to define criminals against our society.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      You could ban the things he's done, and throw him in jail if he does them again. You can't throw him in jail based on new laws for things he's already done (post-hoc law), or based merely on who he is (bill of attainder).