Gee, who could this bill possibly be targeting?
Man, oh, man! This is Trump Derangement Syndrome on steroids.
Apparently, there are some lawmakers that don’t know what to do now that they don’t have President Donald J. Trump to use to grab the headlines.
In a desperate (and I mean desperate!) attempt to get 15-minutes of fame by attempting to use the law as a cudgel against the former President, several Democrat lawmakers are beclowning themselves in public.
Hey, if they want the attention, let’s give it to ’em.
Congresswoman Linda Sánchez of California’s 38th District introduced legislation to prevent federal funds from being used to honor former President Donald John Trump in any way, shape, or form. It is so petty that it even limits the benefits given to former presidents including burial in Arlington National Cemetery.
She admits that this bill is specifically targeting the 45th President of the United States.
“For years, Donald Trump poured gasoline on lies, encouraging racism and hatred, then lit the match on January 6th. A president who has been impeached twice does not deserve the honors bestowed on a former president,” said Congresswoman Linda T. Sánchez. “We should never glorify the hatred Donald Trump personified as President. This bill ensures that there is no glory for hate – not a building, statue, or even a park bench.”
She calls it the “No Glory For Hate Act.” (Sort of ironic since she’s trying to get some glory for punishing a guy that she clearly hates, eh?)
Speaking of getting some glory for her “virtuous” act, here she is on MSNBC:
She is so traumatized by the riot on January 6 that she’s still on this. I’m sure that she showed the same kind of compassion to the Republican Congressional Baseball team after the attempted slaughter by that Bernie Bro, as well as for all the people who suffered during the George Floyd riots over the summer.
But she’s not too traumatized to punish a guy that isn’t even in office anymore.
Rep. Sánchez said, “Even though Trump is no longer in office, he should still be held accountable for his actions and the taxpayers should not foot the bill for his future actions. I can’t imagine sending students in Southern California — or anywhere in America — to a school named in honor of a traitorous president.”
HR-484 prohibits any federal funds to be used to commemorate a president that has been impeached twice by the House of Representatives or who has been convicted of a State or Federal crime relating to actions taken in an official capacity. The bill says nothing about having been acquitted by the Senate… twice.
The prohibitions in the Bill include commemoration in the form of:
- public lands
In addition, it limits the benefits that former Presidents enjoy including:
- office travel expenses
- burial in Arlington National Cemetery
This isn’t just one member of the “Party of Unity” — she was joined by several of her colleagues. A whole clown-car of members of Congress signed on to her bill:
- Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL-9)
- Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA-32)
- Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL-7)
- Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN-7)
- Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX-16)
- Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA-13)
- Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3)
- Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT-5)
- Rep.Ruben Gallego (D-AZ-7)
- Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA-11)
- Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA-47)
- Rep. Nikema Williams (D-GA-5)
- Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA-27)
Live look at the Democrats heading over to the Press Briefing for their 15 minutes of fame:
It’s fortunate that everything in the country is running so tickety-boo and there are zero crises to address that lawmakers can spend their days crafting laws to punish their political enemies, isn’t it?
Is this the kind of unity under Joe Biden that we were promised?
Here’s the kicker, though — this bill is unconstitutional because it’s singling out one individual for punishment despite not being found guilty in a trial by jury.
California attorney Harmeet Dhillon tweeted about the news.
This is pathetic, even for you, House Democrats. I heard some of you went to law school. Ever heard of a bill of attainder? https://t.co/bfuuozdacZ
— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) February 18, 2021
The Constitution prohibits bills of attainder, which are “legislative acts that, without trial, condemned specifically designated persons or groups to death.” In contrast, bills of pains and penalties, “singled out designated persons or groups for punishment less than death,” according to the Heritage Foundation.
Dhillon mentions this because HR-484 is unconstitutional under the Bill of Attainder Clause.
In United States v. Brown (1965), the Court specifically rejected a “narrow historical approach” to the clauses and characterized the Framers’ purpose as to prohibit “legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups.” In Ex parte Garland (1867), for example, the Supreme Court struck down under the Attainder Clause a congressional statute directed against former Confederates that barred persons from practicing law before United States courts who had, among other things, merely given “encouragement” to rebels…
…The Court has devised a three-part test to determine when a piece of legislation violates the Bill of Attainder Clause: (1) such legislation specifies the affected persons (even if not done in terms within the statute), (2) includes punishment, and (3) lacks a judicial trial.
Source: The Heritage Foundation
If only we had some legislators on the Democrat side of the aisle that actually understand the Constitution before drafting new laws.
One can dream…
by Doug Giles
Doug Giles, best-selling author of Raising Righteous And Rowdy Girls and Editor-In-Chief of the mega-blog, ClashDaily.com, has just penned a book he guarantees will kick hipster males into the rarefied air of masculinity. That is, if the man-child will put down his frappuccino; shut the hell up and listen and obey everything he instructs them to do in his timely and tornadic tome. Buy Now: Pussification: The Effeminization Of The American Male