Talk:Bill of attainder

Churchill
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
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)

Bill and an Act
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, under pressure from Parliament and the London mobs Charles did. 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"..

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)

Australia
"Unlike the United States Constitution, there is no specific provision prohibiting the Commonwealth Government from passing bills of attainder."

Because there is no clause allowing the Commonwealth Parliament to pass such bills, they are unconstitutional. Grassynoel (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump Impeachment Senate Trial #2
It has been argued by many legal scholars (chief among them Professor Alan Dershowitz ) that the second Trump impeachment trial in the Senate was, in essence, a Bill of Attainder, as Trump was a civilian at the time that he was tried. Schlice (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)