So, what legal principle, court ruling, or law prevents legislation targeted at a specific entity?
In a recent thread one flaw with a posted theory/idea was that it involved a law targeted at specific individual or small group (and not a member of an explicitly protected group like race or religion).
Who says such a principal exists? Congress even has a special term for laws that target a specific individual or group: private laws. The most recent one was S. 285, “A Bill For the relief of Sopuruchi Chukwueke.”
As that other thread correctly said, a Bill of attainder is specifically prohibited, not any other type of “legislation targeted at a specific entity”.
Where is the confusion coming in?
So, theoretically, Congress could pass a law saying “Joe Jackson must bathe or shower at least once every two days” (Joe Jackson (fictitious outside this theoretical example) has unusually stinky body odor and some hygiene issues), correct?
No confusion (not now, anyway). I just like seeing how common American ethics are implemented in law, and discovering ways the law isn’t as messed up or easily abused as many people think. (It’s still messed up, but there’s usually a semi-consistent logic to it and some limited protections against abuse).
In addition to the Bill of Attainder clause in the U.S. and I think all state constitutions, there’s also the general idea-- and you’ll need a lawyer for more detail, but courts have at times upheld this – that laws must have a (at least barely-plausible) relation to legitimate government concerns, both in their goal and in whether the law would actually affect reaching that goal. This is of course, aside from the particular issue of whether the U.S. Constitution grants Congress jurisdiction over a particular area or not, as by default states have jurisdiction.
So, Joe Jackson might concede that public health and eliminating odor nuisances are valid concerns of the State of Mississippi, but argue it has no legitimate interest in what he does on his own private property, so there’s no valid reason for the a Mississippi law specifying what he must do when not in public.
(If the U.S. Congress passed the “Joe Jackson Bathing Law”, he’s got an even better argument: personal hygiene, or even public health in general, isn’t anything delegated to Congress by the Constitution; the U.S. might convince a judge that it’s related to interstate commerce, but that’s a bit of a stretch).
Finally, based purely on a quick reading of the Wikipedia article, it seems to me that Joe Jackson could claim that the forced bathing is punishment, and therefore the law is in fact a Bill of Attainder.
I was going to crack a joke about how badly he must stink if it’s substantially affecting interstate commerce. Maybe if he lives in Washington and is just stinking up the Capitol they could justify it under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
If everyone except Joe Jackson were free to skip their bath, I would argue equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Which points to the other issue - laws must not violate the constitution, as it trumps mere law. For example, a law that mandates all businesses must close Sunday (or- be open Saturday)… It may be argued that this law is applicable to everyone, but if it appears that it is designed or the net effect is to put the screws to Jews and Moslems, it can be argued it violates freedom of religion.
it’s not if a law “targets” a person or group, it’s invalid if it violates a specific protection - race, creed, colour, equal protection, freedom of religion, freedom of speech.
Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection was my thought as well, but it’s not a prohibition, as interpreted by the SCOTUS to date (for reasons that are obvious if you think about it: almost every law has the effect of preferring or discriminating against some set of people or entities somewhere). You just have to make it past a hurdle of height dictated by who you’re targeting or effecting.
(I actually remember there being dicta in some case or another that discussed the possibility of a “class of one” in an equal protection context–someone who’s had con law more recently than I can feel free to chime in.)
He’s affecting interstate commerce by not buying soap or deodorant.
State constitutions often contain a principle of “general applicability” for state legislation. Here’s Illinois’s:
SECTION 13. SPECIAL LEGISLATION
The General Assembly shall pass no special or local law
when a general law is or can be made applicable. Whether a
general law is or can be made applicable shall be a matter
for judicial determination.
But when the Illinois General Assembly passes a statute that applies to “all counties with a population of more than four million,” it’s pretty certain they’re singling out Cook County.
“The law in its infinite wisdom forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under the bridges.”
Pennsylvania has something similar. The legislature uses “class 1 city” to target Philadelphia, “class 2” when they feel like writing laws for Pittsburgh only, and “class 2A” for Scranton. In this way, the state constitution protects the people from clearer legislation.
Also reminds me of Maryland’s attempt to regulate Walmart by limiting a bill to employers of a certain size and then exempting some of the others that fell in this category.
Was partially struck down on equal protection grounds, but that is an oversimplification of what happened.
IANAL but: Does this have something to do with the recent enactment of voter ID legislation, which is arguably directed at minorities and the poor? If it can be shown perhaps that, even though the law is not directed at a particular minority group, the overall affect is to disproportionately deny e.g. African Americans their rights then the state’s interest in enacting such a law would come under heightened scrutiny if challenged in a Federal court
This principle would also apply to free speech legislation, more precisely laws prohibiting certain forms of speech or laws affecting one gender. There is no law that says such laws cannot be enacted, but rather that because of the danger they must be subjected to increased or more exacting scrutiny.
As others have said, there’s no general principle in the Constitution that specifically prohibits this type of law.
There are examples of where legislatures do pass laws that are essentially targeted at a specific group. For example, let’s say a law is enacted requiring all beer bottles to have a five cent deposit. Beer companies could argue that they’re being targeted as a group - companies that use bottles for other products don’t get charged the deposit.
At least now we know why she’s really going out with ‘him’ (instead of Joe).
Such passage would be declared UNconstitutional, period, but say a person were arrested under it, that would be in the Prosecutorial sense, “Selective Prosecution/Enforcement”, based on a “Selective Enactment”.
You’ve just contradicted what everyone else in this thread has said. Do you have anything to back this up?
How did I contradict it?? Bill of Attainder’s are UNconstitutional.