|
But, I don't think that it HAS to be an individual person, per se. It could just be a bill for an individual case. For example, a bill that specifically granted terri schiavo's parents a right to appeal to the feds would be a bill of attainder. But, a bill that granted all such cases a right to appeal would not be. Essentially, the law are supposed to be generally applicable to all, equally applied, etc. Bills of attainder go against that notion, because after the case for which they are passed is history, such a law, even though still on the books, would be of no real force or effect for the rest of the population or future similar cases. As for corporations, they could pass a law, but it would have to be applicable to all corporations similarly situated, and can't just be passed for one. For example, you could nationalize the oil industry, but it would be a bill of attainder to single out Exxon-Mobile.
the 'three-armed people' example you give above doesn't apply... exactly. The government can make classifications, but they would have to have a good reason for making that sort of differentiation. For example, laws protecting the elderly from mistreatment creates a group classification that is a good thing, while laws that force blacks to live in different schools are not a good classification. The former protects from discrimination, while the latter legally requires discrimination. I believe it would be the same for three-armed people.
I'm no lawyer, but that is my understanding of how all that works.
|