Bill of Attainder

The provisions outlawing bills of attainder were adopted by the Constitutional Convention unanimously, and without debate. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed [by the Congress]. Art. I, 9, cl. 3. No State shall . . . pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . . . [L]egislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable [381 U.S. 449] members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution. United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) [verified] Thus, the Bill of Attainder Clause not only was intended as one implementation of the general principle of fractionalized power, but also reflected the Framers' belief that the Legislative Branch is not so well suited as politically independent judges and juries to the task of ruling upon the blameworthiness of, and levying appropriate punishment upon, specific persons. United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) [verified] The best available evidence, the writings of the architects of our constitutional system, indicates that 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. United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) [verified] The Constitution divides the National Government into three branches -- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. [p443] This "separation of powers" was obviously not instituted with the idea that it would promote governmental efficiency. It was, on the contrary, looked to as a bulwark against tyranny. For if governmental power is fractionalized, if a given policy can be implemented only by a combination of legislative enactment, judicial application, and executive implementation, no man or group of men will be able to impose its unchecked will. James Madison wrote: The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) [verified]