The founders and attainder.

People seem to have forgotten both the history and intent of the Founders in creating the constitution. History talks of the greatest monopolies, including the British East India company, the bankers placing taxes on the colonies due to the expansionism of this company, and attempting to extort profits and using writs of attainder and seizures of property with warrants written on the spot.

Is it so much different to tax via writ, than to seize via writ, when the end result and initial intention is the same, seizure via force?

The federalist 57, "the Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation." by either Hamilton or Madison, Tuesday, February 19, 1788

"I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society."

No targeted legislation. Period.

Federalist 44 was an earlier mention of this, including prohibitions from paper money, by James Madison, Friday, January 25, 1788

"Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and lessinformed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society. The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment."

One might ask how these intentions comport with the absolute disregard that our current legislature and executive show for the intent of the law. A bill of attainder is any bill that singles out any class of citizens (from the class of one to the class of all) for punishment, fines, fees, or restrictions without a court hearing, and trial by jury with the power, right, and duty of juristic nullification for unconstitutional laws. If it establishes a taint upon the class of one or the class of all, provides special penalties for the existence of that taint, and removes or restricts any right, immunity, or freedom under the Constitution, it is attainder.

Supreme court justices have departed from the original principles, and are loathe to thereto return, however, it is their duty to maintain those core principles of the constitution. They are the sole guardians and interpreters of the law, and for this reason they are nigh immune to removal from the bench.

There was, however, a process and a means by which they could be removed, high crimes against the nation, high treason, and judging against those very core principles that established and maintained their power.

Does it benefit a government, or a people to have a system of laws, if that system is not equally applied? Does it ever benefit a society to create laws to disadvantage some for the advantage of others? It was not too long ago that we abolished slavery, and though longer ago, still only an eyeblink in history that we attempted to forever abolish monopolies, and thereby established the constitution and nation which we should enjoy today.

Should we enjoin against any group for any reason by force of law, we have all become slaves once again. It is the nature of power to forever expand to the limits of what the people will bear, until they cannot resist.

After all, there are harms, and harms. We legislate against those that harm our children, but in the legislative process, how many might be harmed? How many generations of children will grow up with no parents, no family, reviled by society, bearing debts that they did not ask for or even have the choice in from before their conception? How many will taste the ambrosia of liberty? How many will face the walls of prison? Who has the greatest power to harm children?

I'd have to argue that this power would be in the government itself. If unrestrained, Government is a monster, lashing out at all and sundry, the work of rapacious and power-mad men has ever been the destruction of all the society holds dear. The parasites in congress have long-since weakened their host, and intend to become predators, to slaughter that nation and eat out its substance. Are we, as a people, so blind as to believe that they truly have your best intentions at heart? Why would they create fear, when they could show reason? Why terrify when they could educate? Why indoctrinate when the job of education is to teach our children to think, perceive, and question?

What psychological harms are created when we do not teach our children the simple scientific process? What threat is it to the government to question, to perceive, to investigate, to test? Would we not be better off if all were willing to examine reality itself and the political process and actually invent, investigate, experiment? If we were to apply reason to the problem rather than fear?

Any time we create situations where fear is more important than fact.. perhaps it's time to look at those that are engendering the fear. Perhaps, just perhaps, they are trying to distract you from more important things, or from their own actions.

Fear is destructive of reason, and reasonable outcomes can never come from that fear.