Bill of Attainder Revisited.

A long time ago, I wrote a piece on Bills of Attainder. It was 14 pages long.

This time, I'm going to keep it short, sweet, and too the point.

I've learned a lot in the last almost two years.

So here goes...



A Bill of Attainder boils down to one key component.

It is any legislation passed in which the legislators assume your guilt without you having ever gone to trial. They then proscribe your punishment in their law.

For example, some states have DUI Registries. It is assumed (and sometimes backed up with studies) that you (the DUI criminal) will commit your crime again. So, since you are guilty of a future offense of driving under the influence, then you must submit to having your name plastered all across the land.

Or, in Hawaii, if you are merely charged with a crime, their Sheriff's website will put you up on their front page. Doesn't matter if you are found not guilty, they still have you up on the internet as presumed guilty.

The easiest way to argue the "punishment" aspect of Bills of Attainder is to realize that our Rights, inalienable as they are, once removed, constitutes punishment. To take someones God given right, is punishment in and of itself. It doesn't matter if the "law" is Civil in nature, or Criminal in nature. The removal of an enjoyment of rights is a punishment.

The other part of Bills of Attainder that needs to be slightly clarified is the area of "targeted legislation."

It is stated in the US Constitution that we are to have Equal Protection. Any legislation that targets and singles out an individual, or an easily ascertainable group of individuals, and creates a law different for them versus the rest of society, is a Bill of Attainder.

Remember, I am not a lawyer. I am a student of the Constitution. IF you feel that there is action that needs to be taken, please consult a Lawyer for guidance.

Oath of Office and Affirmations.

In the Constitution of the United States, there is a clause that says "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Article VI, paragraph 3)

According to the dictionary, an Oath is:

"Any type of attestation by which an individual signifies that he or she is bound in conscience to perform a particular act truthfully and faithfully; a solemn declaration of truth or obligation.

An individual's appeal to God to witness the truth of what he or she is saying or a pledge to do something enforced by the individual's responsibility to answer to God.

Similarly an affirmation is a solemn and formal declaration that a statement is true; however, an affirmation includes no reference to God so it can be made by someone who does not believe in God or by an individual who has conscientious objections against swearing to God. Provisions in state statutes or constitutions ordinarily allow affirmations to be made as alternatives to oaths.

In order for an oath to be legally effective, it must be administered by a public official. The law creating each public office and describing the duties of the official ordinarily indicates who is authorized to administer the oath of office. A spoken oath is generally sufficient; however, a written and signed oath can be required by law."

And the Oath they must take is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." (This is the Congressional Oath of Office. Different positions require different wording, but the idea is the same.)

Everyone that swears an oath (or affirmation) swore to uphold the Constitution. They didn't swear to uphold the laws that are written, but to uphold the Constitution. That means in making the law, the enforcement of that law, and how that law is used in Court.

When someone breaks, or violates their Oath, there are strong and serious consequences for that.

A Congressperson can be removed from office, a lawyer dis-barred, and a Judge pulled from his/her bench and dis-barred as well as all of their cases being suspect.

The Code in each State has different punishments for violating the Oath of Office for State Government workers. But the US Code is universal enough to be shown here.

5 US 7731 Section 8(5) says: "Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in, any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons (hereinafter referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, or which seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States or any State or subdivision thereof by unlawful means."

So when anyone (Congress, Judges, Lawyers, etc.) helps to deprive citizens of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States through force, or coercion, is violating not only their Oath of Office, but the US Code as well. If they are waging war on the Constitution by their actions, they are violating this section as well.

The punishment for Congress for waging war on the Constitution (and thus the US Government) is found in a different section.

18 U.S.C. § 1918 says: "Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia." (The conditions of who this applies to can be read at the link given.)

And another consequence for violating 7731 is a Civil Suit under 1983 law.

When an Unconstitutional law is passed by Congress, upheld in court by the Judges and the Lawyers, the consequences for those actions are fairly strong. Lawyers are dis-barred, Judges impeached, and Congress people are removed from office and never allowed to hold office again.

Charges of Oath of Office are a serious thing. And not to be brought about without some serious facts to back it up.

And lastly, please remember, I am not a Lawyer. This is not legal advice, but merely my understanding of things that I found in the Constitution. If you wish to use this information, please consult a Lawyer.

Is There "Corruption of Blood" Working in America?

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person." --Article 1, Section 3 US Constitution

"In English law, the result of attainder, in that the attainted person lost all rights to inherit land or other hereditaments from an ancestor, to retain possession of such property and to transfer any property rights to anyone, including heirs, by virtue of his or her conviction for treason or a felony punishable by death, because the law considered the person's blood tainted by the crime.

Attainder and the consequent corruption of the blood were abolished by English statutes and are virtually unknown in the United States." --Answers.com

"...Because the Law considered the person's blood tainted by the crime." This phrase can be used on any convicted Felon. The Bureau of Justice Statistics states that as of 2007, one in thirty-one adults are on probation, parole, or in prison.

If the Law considers your "blood" tainted because of your crime, then that taint will effect your children and family as well. These people are the "heirs" to whatever potential you may have had. Does this excuse a crime committed? No.

Once a sentence has run it's course, the person is supposed to return to full citizen status. Today, stigma is attached to being a Felon. This stigma reduces your ability to find employment, a home, and build a positive life. The stigma (taint) of your crime has now turned you into a "second class citizen."

Your family, they will struggle with this for the rest of their lives. Your children will be affected by this through their most impressionable years.

Treason used to be the only crime that Corruption of Blood used to be an after effect of. Now, anything classified as a felony will attaint you with Corruption of Blood.

This stigma now removes many of the rights you were given under the Constitution of the United States of America. No longer are you allowed to vote, own a gun, or be eligible to serve this country in the Military. All of these rights (or their removal) will effect your family.

Collateral Damage is now acceptable in the United States. People say "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." But I would challenge anyone out there to find me someone that knew what the social stigma would be before his sentencing. The true punishment doesn't become apparent until long after your sentence has run it's course.

Collateral Damage is a polite way of saying that your family is under Corruption of Blood.

Don't like it, then speak up to your legislators.

Stare Decisis's Role in Today's Political Climate

STARE DECISIS is "to stand by that which is decided." The principle that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

The concept of Stare Decisis is fairly simple. If you have a defined set of laws, and a court ruling tries to define one of those laws to a more finite level, it sets a precedence outside of the original definition of the Law. It is easily understood if you check out these diagrams, and can visually see the progression that takes place.

When you understand how Stare Decisis can pervert the Judicial system, one then asks the question of how to fix it? The only way to truly set things “right” would be to find one of the more controversial laws from the past that helped to create a precedence setting ruling, and fight it on a Due Process and Stare Decisis basis.

The other question that can be asked is “How did this happen?” The answer to that question lies in the people elected to office that set these laws up. In my article “Adjournment Sine Die” I discuss this briefly. Not to mention that when Congress passes 10's upon thousands of new Legislation every year, The Supreme Court can't keep up with the caseload of deciding Constitutionality. So, until someone comes alone to challenge it, Congress gets to pass it as law. And, if no one challenges it, it sets precedence for the creation of new laws that are even more erroneous.

This has come about most strongly in the 20^th century. There has been a major push to create precedence for setting the Government up as the ONLY ruling body in the country.

This of course goes against everything the Constitution was created for. It is “For the people, by the people” and through the people that this Government is given it's power. The Constitution, and even the Federalist Papers talk about the power being the peoples and not the Government. There is even mention that the Government is null and void if the citizens rights are ever taken away. This too was discussed previously.

So, I ask: if our Rights are continuously being removed, if Congress is continuously creating legislation that is outside of it's authority, if the Judicial branch isn't ruling against these injustices, how are we supposed to set things right? How do we as citizens get the Government to pay attention to our wishes?

The only way left to us. We stand up and tell them that no longer are we going to sit idly by. No longer are we going to take the abuse. Each of us needs to educate our neighbor. We need the people to cry out long and hard. And only then will the Government listen. Only then can we effect the “change” that we have been asking for for so many years now.

Ask your Congress person to stick to the Constitution. Ask them to stop the insanity that plagues our Political Climate. Ask them to stop the use of Stare Decisis. Ask them to uphold the Constitution that they are sworn to protect.

How much longer must we suffer these injustices before we stand up and fight? How much longer do we have before we no longer have a way to turn it around? How much longer are you willing to wait?

A Series on the Loss of Rights: Due Process

"Due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land, instead of respecting merely some or most of those legal rights. In the laws of the United States (U.S.), this principle gives individuals a varying ability to enforce their rights against alleged violations thereof by governments. Due process has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. The latter interpretation is analogous to the concepts of natural justice and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions."

There are two kinds of "Due Process", Procedural and Substantive. Procedural is the process by which things are done. Due process by procedures. Substantive on the other hand, are the rights given by the Constitution that are byproducts of the Bill of Rights.

Most everything you read these days is geared towards protecting your established rights. What you don't read about is the establishing of those rights.

Congress in it's near limitless power in creating a new law, often takes it upon themselves to use a House Rule to pass laws and not follow the Constitutional processes.

For example, the Senate is to have a Quorum when creating major legislation. In the definition of a Quorum, the Senate "presumes" that a Quorum is present unless someone calls for a roll call. Basically meaning that 1, 2, 5, or so people could be present to pass legislation. And unless one of those people is dumb enough to ask for a roll call vote, they can pass any legislation they want to. Couple that with Adjournment Sine Die, you get a Congress that does what it wants, when it wants, without the benefit of checks and balances.

Congress is supposed to have a quorum present (51%) when creating or passing major pieces of legislation. Congress is supposed to close it's doors at the end of their season. The Senate IS NOT to create legislation, they are to be the "cooling plate" for the House of Representatives.

So here's the question of the day. If Congress uses the House Rules to pass major legislation, are they following Procedural Due Process in the creation of laws? If they are not, are those laws considered to be Constitutional? Should they be "re-argued" with a true Quorum present? Are they completing their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution in the creation of these laws? Are our rights as citizens under the Constitution being protected when they create laws this way?

Adjournment Sine Die

Adjournment sine die - The end of a legislative session "without day." These adjournments are used to indicate the final adjournment of an annual or the two-year session of a Congress.


This interestingly bland detail introduced itself to me yesterday. As far as I can understand it (not being a Congressman or a Lawyer), this tool is used to close Congress and stop the ability for Congress to pass laws until the next scheduled session.

In case you didn't pick up the connotation there, if it's not used, then any member of Congress can sneak in, and pass laws using trickery. There are documented cases of this. Many laws that are effectively screwing up America today are caused by this very detail. I would elaborate on which ones, but I'm not ready to present such Nationally destructive info as of yet. (stay tuned as I slowly elaborate and give my evidence)

Under the original intent of the Constitution, Congress was only able to act with a Majority. That came to a screeching halt when the South seceded from the Union. Which meant that the southern states were not in Congress. Therefore, not majority could be reached. So, Lincoln wrote a writ to allow Emergency Powers to Congress so that they could get back to writing laws.

One of those nasty powers granted under the writ Lincoln wrote was a little thing called: Suspension of Rules.

I've written about Suspension of Rules before, but here's a brief synopsis. Suspension of Rules allows for the Congress to set aside the normal rules of making laws and pass laws without the normal checks and balances.

After researching this suspension of rules, I became aware that it's existence is tracked back to the 1870's, which would imply the time of the Lincoln writ. Under the Constitution and on major pieces of legislation, it states a need of a 2/3 majority vote. Congress should not have the ability to use the Suspension of Rules to pass major legislation.

Congress does have the ability to create it's own rules in the passage of laws within each House and Senate, but those rules are to help in the making of laws.

The Suspension of Rules is one of those "house rules" that is supposed to be used only on mundane things like the naming of Post Offices and whatnot. It was not meant to be used on major Constitutional issues.

I bring up the Suspension of Rules to illustrate a problem with not adjourning Congress at the end of the session. If Congress is not "officially" closed for the session, someone can come in and use things like Suspension of Rules to pass legislation while most of Congress is not present.

Adjournment Sine Die is important for keeping Congress honest. We may not even have the ability for Congress to use Adjournment Sine Die because we are at a State of War. We have been at a State of War since September 11th, 2001, because the President keeps renewing this decree. While we are at "war", Congress cannot convene.

So, if a controversial law is passed using a "house rule" and not using the Constitutional Rule, should it still be a valid law? Or, should it be considered unconstitutional because Congress didn't use procedural due process to pass that law? If Congress cannot convene, are we given due process when someone in Congress passes a major legislative piece while the session is supposed to be over?

Tort Laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_tort_law

Under United States tort law, torts are generally divided into three categories: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.Intentional torts include those actions that are intentional and voluntary and that are made with knowledge by the tortfeasor (i.e. the person who committed the tort) upon the plaintiff (the one who brings the complaint seeking relief). Intentional torts include: battery, assault (apprehension of harmful or offensive contact), false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), invasion of privacy, fraud, defamation of character (includes libel, which is written defamation of character and slander, which is non-written defamation of character), malicious prosecution, abuse of process, the real property tort of trespass to land, and the personal property torts of conversion and trespass to chattels.

Hmmm.... let it soak in...