The dick act of 1902

I don't know if this has ever been posted but its an eye opener at what we don't know or what the government keeps us from knowing
Dick Act of 1902

 

I failed to turn it up in a quick search, but I know it has been discussed. The part of the story that brings it to mind is this part...
"The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder andex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. "
...which if I remember correctly, is complete gobbledygook.
It has nothing to do with bills of attainder. And ANY act can be repealed with a high enough majority. Even the rules of how Congress acts can be changed with a high enough majority.

Edit:
"A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder orbill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.
Bill of attainder - Wikipedia, the free "encyclopedia

Bill of Attainder

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... 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 less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

• 
  
  
  • Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
  • Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
  • U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
  • Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
  • Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

See also, SBC v. FCC.

Definition: Bill of Attainder.

 

As with much "Snoops" (hubby/wife team looking stuff up on the net) this is a mix of accurate and well, internet stupidity, of which there is plenty. Research it and look the stuff up for yourself to find the truth. A half truth is much harder to disprove than a whole lie, which is why the internet fools and liers use it.

 

my thanks to kellory and brokor for your input you both cleared up a lot for me--thanks again