Why doesn&#39;t the U.S. sanctions against individuals violate the bill of attainder law? Recently the United States has been applying sanctions against individuals, such as Vladimir Putin's adult daughters. This isn't a new thing by any stretch, but I wondered recently why this isn't considered a violation of the bill of attainder clause of the U.S. Constitution. Here are some possibilities I can think of: The sanctions are against non-U.S. citizens. (Presumably this could not be done to a political opponents' children.) Specific sanctions are handled by the executive rather than the legislative branch. Individual targeting is allowed if it's part of a legitimate foreign policy aim. (This answer suggests as much in response to a similar question about the fifth amendment.) Perhaps these sanctions avoid referring to specific individuals in some legally significant way. I'm not sure if any or all of these make a difference.
The Constitutional proviso of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 states that &quot;No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed&quot;. This does not preclude a legal finding against the interest of an individual (e.g. a law can be passed whereby a person is punished for committing a certain act). It is important to understand that this clause means that Congress cannot pass a law declaring an individual to be guilty – this limits the legislative branch, not the executive or judicial branches. Congress can pass a general law and then the executive and judicial branches can enforce that law against an individual. Sanctions against an individual are routinely imposed by the executive branch (the IRS can fine you, Securities Exchange Commission can fine you, HUD can fine you, Homeland Security can sanction you in various ways...). Actions against an individual always start with the executive branch. You can contest an executive action on various grounds, such as &quot;exceeds authority&quot; or &quot;unconstitutionality of underlying law&quot;, which then brings in the judicial branch. A &quot;bill of attainder&quot; would be a law passed by Congress that declares Katerina and Maria Vladimirovna to be guilty, end of story, and no such law was enacted.
It may help to start by clearing up some false premises in the question/comments: The Fourteenth Amendment does not &quot;expressly list protecting citizens as a core responsibility of Government.&quot; The IRS does not define &quot;U.S. person&quot; as &quot;someone that is born.&quot; The Internal Revenue Code has no bearing on whether corporations are considered people for purposes of political contributions. Then we need to clear up the main logical fallacy on which the question is built: Even if we accept that the Fourteenth Amendment requires government to protect citizens, and even if we accept that fetuses are not citizens, that doesn't mean states can't protect fetuses. That argument -- &quot;States may protect citizens, therefore states may not protect noncitizens&quot; -- is a straightforward example of denying the antecedent and pretty obviously untenable once you stop to think about it. Houses aren't citizens. Elections aren't citizens. Can state laws protect them? Foreign exchange students aren't citizens; can state laws protect them? How about the Canadian ambassador? The answer is quite well settled. The Tenth Amendment ensures state governments' right to enact virtually any laws to promote health, safety, and welfare, so long as those laws do not run afoul of some constitutional limit. Existing Supreme Court precedent makes clear that that authority -- known as the &quot;police power&quot; -- is virtually boundless. See, e.g., Bos. Beer Co. v. State of Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25, 27 (1877); Lake Shore &amp; M. S. R. Co. v. State of Ohio, 173 U.S. 285, 297 (1899); Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398–99 (1895). While Roe v. Wade has long provided just such a constitutional limit against the exercise of that power to regulate abortion, it appears clear that protection is about to vanish. Without Roe, states looking to protect &quot;potential life&quot; will be free to enact virtually any law that would advance that goal.
The last part, about equal suffrage in the Senate, does not expire. The question is whether it can be itself amended out of existence. There has been no test of that possibility. This article argues that this may not be subject to amendment. There is only one way to find out for sure. The idea is that the original intent was that this is supposed to be an absolute clause, but of course that only speaks to original intention (and the original intention is not clear, as the article discusses).
The answer to your question, strictly in terms of whether they have the capacity to authorize states to violate international humanitarian law is yes. However, it is highly unlikely. It takes only one permanent member to veto such a resolution. Moreover, UN Charter Article 24(2) states that: ... the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations ... and International Humanitarian Law would certainly be considered a principle of the United Nations. So, are they capable of passing a resolution in violation of International Humanitarian Law? Sure. Is it likely to happen? Almost certainly not. Having said that, if this happened, it would be a novel area of law, and while currently, international law suggests it would be binding and legal, it is possible that sanctions could be imposed if such a resolution were passed by the Security Council.
You have misread the DMLP page. In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to record a conversation if you are a party and if the other party does not consent. The fact that federal law doesn't ban something doesn't mean that states can't ban it. There is generally a presumption that when both the feds and the states can legitimately regulate something, the feds weren't trying to preempt all state laws on the topic. While people often say "federal law takes precedence over state law," the normal rule is that both laws apply; the federal law only blocks the state law if the feds wanted to block said state laws. So far as I can tell, the federal law has never been held to preempt two-party consent laws; the point of the federal law was to restrict recording, not extend it. It's like how federal law doesn't prohibit taking hostages inside the US to coerce a private company into doing what you want (anti-terrorism laws might, I guess, but the federal hostage-taking law doesn't); while the federal law excludes most hostage-taking in the US, that doesn't mean that it's legal to take hostages. Congress sometimes wants to establish nationwide standards for something, but the presumption is that they didn't.
The answer is &quot;it depends on the protection.&quot; Even illegal aliens are afforded certain rights by the US Constitution. For example, that fact is one of the reasons for the prison in Guantanamo Bay. Another consideration, for protections or rights that are available to citizens but not to aliens, is that the determination of citizenship or alienage must be subject to the right of due process. Without that, the executive branch of government would be able to, for example, remove or exclude anyone from the United States, or commit anyone to indefinite immigration detention, simply by asserting that the person is an alien, without review by the judicial branch. There is a discussion, with references, here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien. This mentions the fifth and fourteenth amendments, as well asthe fourth, as applicable to aliens. Pertinent quotations (emphasis added): Aliens also receive treatment very similar to the treatment that U.S. citizens receive in the context of the judicial system. For instance, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution apply to aliens residing within the United States. As such, the courts guarantee aliens the right to due process of law and equal protection of the laws. Courts have generally construed the Fourth Amendment as applicable to aliens as well. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. Congress has the preeminent power in terms of passing statutes that regulate immigration and alienage. Consequently, the United States Constitution enables Congress to delineate the rights, duties, and liabilities that accompany legal immigrant status. Congressional power in this realm, however, must comply with the qualification that any law resulting in disparate treatment between aliens and citizens must bear some relation to a legitimate goal impacting immigration law. When a law treats an alien differently from a U.S. citizen, courts treat the law as inherently suspect and apply strict scrutiny when considering the law's constitutionality. States possess the power to confer additional rights on aliens within their respective jurisdictions. While states may not pass regulations affecting aliens that directly conflict with federal laws or the U.S. Constitution, states may pass other regulations if they bear some rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. State law controls the right of an alien to hold real property in the particular state. Under common law, the alien had property rights similar to those of citizens. Currently, most states have enacted statutes following the common law, but a few have forbid aliens, ineligible for U.S. citizenship, from holding or acquiring real property. These laws have resulted in some successful challenges by aliens who claimed the laws were unconstitutional. ... When invoking federal question jurisdiction, federal statutes provide aliens with access to the federal court system in the following three scenarios: allegations of civil rights violations by the federal government, allegations of Equal Protection Clause violations by the federal government, and allegations of violations of the Refugee Act of 1980. A strict reading of the text sheds some light on the matter. For example, many constitutional rights are specified by limiting the power of congress; such a limitation applies to all people under the jurisdiction of federal law. For example, the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Similarly, some rights explicitly granted by the constitution are typically granted to &quot;the People,&quot; without reference to nationality. The Fourth Amendment: The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (The question of whether &quot;the People&quot; implies &quot;of the United States&quot; may explain the qualifier &quot;generally&quot; in the sentence above discussing applicability of the Fourth Amendment.) Some rights are granted specifically to &quot;persons&quot;; the courts appear to have concluded that this applies to everyone regardless of nationality. The Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Finally, some rights are expressed as procedural rules applying to the courts. As with limitations on congress, these apply to anyone who is party to a relevant action. For example, the Sixth Amendment applies to &quot;all criminal prosecutions&quot;: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. The Seventh Amendment applies to all &quot;suits at common law&quot;: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by Jury shall be preserved, and no fact, tried by a Jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
I don’t believe there is an aggravated violation due to his disability, but it is quite likely that a court will find that to be a violation of his rights. Florida’s stop and frisk law 901.151(2) would indicate the original stop and temporary detention was valid, but once the item in his back pocket had been identified, 901.151(3) requires that the detention be immediately terminated. After the identification, he was no longer being legally detained, it was thus either an illegal detention and a violation of his 4th amendment rights or a consensual encounter under Florida law, and if consensual no requirement to Id. But just because it was a violation of his rights doesn’t mean that he will automatically win a lawsuit if he brings one. Jones v. State, 584 So.2d 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) holds that you can’t be charged with resisting arrest without violence (aka 843.01), when the arrest itself is unlawful. I suppose Hodges could be charged with “obstructing” which is covered by the same statue, but more ambiguous than “arrest”.
As far as I understand, no. In Canada, everyone has the constitutional right to be free from any cruel or unusual punishment, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. If you're guilty of a crime, well then, you're guilty. You're either going to be tried in court (and if you were guilty of that crime, then you will probably be found guilty), or you will plead as such. Before being tried, you could try to plea bargain with the prosecutor: plead guilty and be sentenced to a lesser charge. Say you were charged with assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm. You thought that the punishment was cruel or unusual - and thought that the trial judge had made an error in the law. In this case, you can make an appeal to a higher court. There are also other things that can factor this: mitigating and aggravating circumstances. If many circumstances are mitigating, then it may make way for a lower punishment, and vice versa with aggravating circumstances, where punishment may be higher. Again, this is something where if something was erred, you can appeal to a higher court. However, just because you think a sentence is too long won't constitute cruel or unusual punishment. In R. vs Latimer, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that minimum sentences, even if within special circumstances, will not constitute cruel or unusual punishment, and be upheld. Originally, he had been sentenced only to one year, based on the recommendation of the jury. He had been charged with second-degree murder. The Supreme Court reinstated the default punishment: A life sentence with no eligibility of parole for ten years.