Talk:Bill of attainder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Churchill[edit]

The article states : "British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had then advocated a policy of summary execution with the use of an Act of Attainder to circumvent legal obstacles." Shouldn't a statement like that come with a reference? This Guardian article is the closest I could find and it doesn't feel like sufficient original evidence. Cholten99 (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

There are two references for this, see [30][31] at the end of the paragraph. But here's another: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nuremberg_Trials
Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic

American usage question[edit]

It's seemed to me that the 'Murrican usage of BofA has been generalized even further, to bills which (whether naming a person or not) are intended to apply specifically to a single individual. Is that in fact the case, or is there some other constitutional prohibition against that that I'm forgetting? --Baylink 22:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there any basis for claiming that the Terri Schiavo bill has some bill of attainder properties? Preisler 17:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bill of attainder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Laws pertaining to specific individuals and groups DO still exist[edit]

The article currently claims that bills of attainder fell out of favor partly because of "the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group." But there is an entire class of US federal laws (called "private law") that applies to specific individuals or groups. So does such a precept really exist? 74.71.72.223 (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Bill and an Act[edit]

I think this article contains a confusion between a bill of attainder and an act of attainder. It is probably best explained with a famous example. Parliament passed a bill of attainder on Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford in 1641.

At first Parliament tried to have Strafford impeached for treason. Only after that looked likely to fail did John Pym persuade Parliament drew up a bill of attainder. Before the bill became law (an act), it had to be assented to by King Charles I. At first he refused to assent, but after Strafford advised him to do so,[1] under pressure from Parliament and the London mobs Charles did.[2] Strafford was executed, but for the rest of his life Charles felt guilty for assassinating to the bill and and said in his gallows speech just before he was executed in 1649 "That an unjust Sentence [on Strafford] that I suffered for to take effect, is punished now by an unjust Sentence upon me".[3].

If Charles had refused to assent to the bill, then it would not have been law and Strafford could not have been executed lawfully. This is why Charles carried the guilt of his assenting to it to his death. In the UK a monarch never refused to assent to any bill in the 20th century, however the President of the United States fairly often vetoes a bill passed by Congress, which is similar to a British monarch refusing assent as stops a Congressional Bill becoming an Act of Congress even if both houses have passed it. -- PBS (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)