PELOSI & Schumer AND the SHAM IMPEACHMENT 2.0: Really more of a “BILL OF ATTAINDER” without the death penalty… a.k.a. …BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES

  • Join War Room Forum!

    Welcome Deplorable! Please take a moment to Sign Up for a free account so you can join in on the LIVE CHAT and forum DISCUSSIONS.

    Sign Up    Live Chat Login

Lady Patriot

Senior Member
War Room VIP Member
Dec 30, 2020
Really more of a “BILL OF ATTAINDER” without the death penalty… a.k.a. …A BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES.

A little education on the U.S. Constitution and American law(s):

“Bill of Attainder” AND/OR “Bill of Pains and Penalties”

Definition: A legislative act THAT SINGLES OUT an individual or group FOR PUNISHMENT WITHOUT A “judge & jury” TRIAL.

BILLS OF ATTAINDER” . . . are special ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE, as inflict CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS (the death penalty) upon persons THEY FIND guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, WITHOUT ANY CONVICTION in the ORDINARY COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS…

BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES”… are special ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE, as inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death.

In BOTH such cases, the legislature assumes JUDICIAL MAGISTRACY, PRONOUNCING GUILT of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs whether OR NOT they are conformable to the rules of evidence.

IN SHORT, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty (like that of a King) in irresponsible DESPOTIC discretion, BEING GOVERNED SOLELY BY WHAT IT DEEMS POLITICALLY NECESSITY or expedient, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.

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 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. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in 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."

Just as Art. III (of the U.S. Constitution) confines the Judiciary to the task of adjudicating concrete "cases or controversies," so too the Bill of Attainder Clause was found to "reflect . . . 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. Lovett, supra, at 316;
Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 323 (1867); cf.
United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 441–442 (1965). 381 U. S., at 445. Brown thus held that § 504 worked a bill of attainder by focusing upon easily identifiable members of a class—members of the Communist Party—and imposing on them the sanction of mandatory forfeiture of a job or office, long deemed to be punishment within the contemplation of the Bill of Attainder Clause.

War Room Forum
Donate to War Room Forum
Donations pay for increased server capacity, Live Chat and our support staff to post news and video clips throughout the day.

Hey Deplorable! Join us...

Never miss out. Join in on all that our community as to offer!

Sign Me Up!

War Room Podcast

War Room Live Chat