Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(7,288 posts)

3. "A ruling along those lines would likely only apply to closely held companies."

Tue Mar 25, 2014, 04:51 PM

Mar 2014

Bills of Attainder are prohibited by Article 1, Section 9. Bad precedent designed to avoid unintended consequences.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court signals support for corporate religious claims [View all] cali Mar 2014 OP

Just who the fuck's work is paying for this health insurance? GeorgeGist Mar 2014 #2

No shit! Rex Mar 2014 #6

A bill of attainder names specific people dsc Mar 2014 #4

I'll grant that it's a broad interpretation. OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #5