• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can A Law Be Specifically Written To Apply Only To One Person?

Can A Law Be Written To Apply To Only One Person?

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
reinoe

reinoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
7,184
Location
Out West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I was just wondering about this. Now I would say immediately "no" but then again, maybe it could be an important philosophical question.
 
Sure. Laws have been written to reward and rectify certain claims of veterans individually.
 
reinoe said:
I was just wondering about this. Now I would say immediately "no" but then again, maybe it could be an important philosophical question.
Click to expand...

Can a law be written to only apply to one person? Of course, I can't think of any off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure there some laws only apply to the president.
 
In some senses yes, like to retroactively give veteran benefits. But laws penalizing individuals are prohibited as bills of attainder.
 
No, never. To an office perhaps, an office which is occupied by more than one person successively, and to a station or role or class designation, but not to a single individual. That contradicts the very meaning of law, it seems to me.
 
Crovax said:
Can a law be written to only apply to one person? Of course, I can't think of any off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure there some laws only apply to the president.
Click to expand...

Technically no. Its unconstitutional. It would be considered a bill of attainder. Those are expressly forbidden by the constitution.
 
Paperview said:
The GOP Congress and president bill of attaindered Terri Schiavo.
Click to expand...

And? It was unconstitutional and they violated the constitution. Whats your point?
 
Paperview said:
The GOP Congress and president bill of attaindered Terri Schiavo.
Click to expand...
I believe the legal question concerned anyone in a permanent vegetative state, not just Terri Schiavo.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Technically no. Its unconstitutional. It would be considered a bill of attainder. Those are expressly forbidden by the constitution.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't a bill of attainder would have to be a named person.
 
Crovax said:
No it wouldn't a bill of attainder would have to be a named person.
Click to expand...

Bill of attainders tend be defined quite broadly. A person does not necessarily have to be named. Considering the question of the op, I think it describes a bill of attainder.
 
PirateMk1 said:
And? It was unconstitutional and they violated the constitution. Whats your point?
Click to expand...

While I agree it was unconstitutional on it's face, my recollection is that no adjudication moved forward, no SCOTUS ruling found it as such.
 
Here's one that was found unconstitutional:

[h=1]Elizabeth Morgan Act[/h]


The Elizabeth Morgan Act is an act of the 104th United States Congress, H.R. 1855, sponsored by Rep. Thomas M. Davis, which was passed as part of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 (H.R. 3675), but declared unconstitutional as a bill of attainder in 2003.
[h=2]Background[/h]Rep. Frank Wolf introduced the bill that became the District of Columbia Civil Contempt Imprisonment Limitation Act in 1989. He again involved himself in the Elizabeth Morgan case when he supported the bill that became the Elizabeth Morgan Act.[SUP][1][/SUP]
In 1996, Congress passed the other bill, the Elizabeth Morgan Act, which permitted Hilary Fortich, who by then called herself Ellen Morgan, to decide whether or not to see her father. The 14-year-old returned with her mother to the United States, but declined to see her father. The father, Eric Foretich, sued in 1997, and the law was overturned as a bill of attainder by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2003, but had no practical effect on Hilary, who was by then 21 and could choose for herself whether or not to see her father.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Morgan_Act
 
reinoe said:
I was just wondering about this. Now I would say immediately "no" but then again, maybe it could be an important philosophical question.
Click to expand...

Sure.

The War Powers Act is a good example. It grants certain powers to the POTUS and only the POTUS.

Not sure if that's what you were driving at, but there you go.
 
Yes - Columbus Day, MLK Jr. Day and Christmas come to mind. More often they apply to positions/actions rather than those that occupy/perform them but I think certain military and civilian medals are issued on an individually named basis.
 
Objective Voice said:
Sure.

The War Powers Act is a good example. It grants certain powers to the POTUS and only the POTUS.

Not sure if that's what you were driving at, but there you go.
Click to expand...

It applies to the office of the president. Not "the president" as a person. Gonna have to look cases involving a bill of attainder.
 
reinoe said:
It applies to the office of the president. Not "the president" as a person. Gonna have to look cases involving a bill of attainder.
Click to expand...

Then I'll have to change my answer and say no.

Congress can only write bills that are national in scope (or as I pointed out, a particular office, towit, the POTUS granting him certain lawful powers).

My next suggestion was going to be a bill declaring a new post office in honor of a particular person, but post offices perform a national function - mail delivery. Same holds true for national holidays named in honor of a specific person, i.e., MLK, Jr Day.

So, in a way it's a catch-22. Yes, the bill can be named after an individual but the purpose must be national in scope.
 
'Private bills' are passed during virtually every Congressional session. These usually deal with residency, citizenship, and military decorations and name a specific individual.

However, a private bill that is punitive is unconstitutional (bill of attainder).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom