Obama Urges Bill of Attainder From Congress

Smarter Than the Constitution!

Phenomenal Genius of Constitutional Law Obama has found another blind spot in the failed philosophy of the founders of the United States. Obama takes particular issue with Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3:

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

“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.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

  • Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
  • Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
  • U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
  • Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
  • Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

See also, SBC v. FCC.

With phenomenal constitutional law genius Obama as phoney president, we no longer need a constitution; Obama can function deftly as both president and supreme court. 

Obama’s backers Journalism will instantly recognize that the framers of the Constitution of the United States failed to anticipate the birth (probably in Kenya) of a constitutional mind so omniscient that the entire constitution is rendered moot and not law.

This guy is smart; no affirmative action constitutional lawyer/community organizer is Obama.  Targeting a tax law at AIG executives receiving bonuses, or all executives receiving bonuses, clearly amounts to determining guilt without a trial. 

The next person to be punished without a trial will be you, Joe the Plumber.

For good measure, Obama, Wiser Than The Constitution’s new law is also an ex-post facto law.

It is also a law impairing the obligation of a contract.

It is also stupid to run a company by government-fanned popular opinion (politics).

Where exactly did Obama study constitutional law? Where are his records from that school? Where did he learn about business? Update 29/03/09; where was Obama born? Who knows?


3 Responses

  1. yeah, its really preposterous that we have a genius at the helm of America. The decider was just so much better with his really refined, gentlemanly ways along with his reputable friends, Rove and Cheney. Obama is just in the way, isn’t he? Is this one of the Koch Brothers’ websites?

  2. Let’s get back to basics.”In competing speeches today, President Obama said the U.S. went off course with practices like waterboarding. Cheney retaliated by saying he doesn’t regret any of the decisions he made, and if he had to do it all over again, he would order President Bush to do exactly the same thing. And then he ate a baby.” –Jimmy Kimmel

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: