Menu
Arguing that the history of the Bill of Attainder Clause shows that it can apply to summary legal proceedings conducted by the Executive, not just actions by Congress.
Calling into question, on originalist grounds, a narrow reading of the Bill of Attainder Clause.
Akhil Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography 144 (2005).
Arguing that a generous, “letter and spirit” read of the Constitution suggests that it condemned a legalized racial hierarchy.
Jacob Reynolds, The Rule of Law and the Origins of the Bill of Attainder Clause, 18 St. Thomas L. Rev. 177 (2005).
Theorizing that the Founders adopted the Bill of Attainder Clauses because of their dedication to the rule of law.
Arguing that the Constitution’s prohibitions on bills of attainder prevent governments from singling out and punishing identifiable groups merely because of who they are.
Arguing for a limited reading of the Bill of Attainder Clause because bills that imposed any punishment less than death were “bills of pains and penalties,” which were treated differently from bills of attainder and are not prohibited by the Constitution.
Charles H. Wilson, Jr., The Supreme Court’s Bill of Attainder Doctrine: A Need for Clarification, 54 Calif. L. Rev. 212 (1966).
Arguing that understanding the Bills of Attainder Clauses as a guarantee of procedural due process is more consistent with the English experience against which the Framers adopted the clauses.
Reviewing Founding Era history to argue that the Bills of Attainder Clause was intended to ensure separation of powers.
Have we missed an article? Please let us know of any additional scholarship that should be included in the Interactive Constitution.