Slashdot Mirror
New Legislation Would Ban US Government From Purchasing Apple Products (arstechnica.com)
HughPickens.com writes: Cyrus Farivar reports at ArsTechnica that Congressman David Jolly has introduced the "No Taxpayer Support for Apple Act," a bill that would forbid federal agencies from purchasing Apple products until the company cooperates with the federal court order to assist the unlocking of a seized iPhone 5C associated with the San Bernardino terrorist attack. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing a company that refuses to cooperate in a terror investigation that left 14 Americans dead on American soil," said Jolly, who announced in 2015 that he's running for Senate, joining the crowded GOP primary field to replace Sen. Marco Rubio. "Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, every citizen and every company was willing to do whatever it took to side with law enforcement and defeat terror. It's time Apple shows that same conviction to further protect our nation today." Jolly's bill echoes a call from Donald Trump last month to boycott Apple until it agrees to assist the FBI. Not to fear, GovTrack gives Jolly's bill a 1% chance of being enacted.
That is a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional.
From Google:
at-tain-der (noun historical) the forfeiture of land and civil rights suffered as a consequence of a sentence of death for treason or felony.
I understand the incredulous response to this proposed legislation, but calling it a bill of attainder is a gross exaggeration.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I think a "bill of attainder" has a different legal definition, though.
As I understand it, bill of attainder is a law that targets a person or group by declaring them guilty of a crime along with some punishment. It was abused by the British Monarchy prior to the Revolutionary War, and resulted in a Constitutional ban on all such laws. Article I, section 9, clause 3:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The last time I heard the term "bill of attander" in the news was the Palm Sunday Compromise ten years ago, when supposed state-rights Republicans rushed a bill through Congress to tear a case out of state court and move it into Federal court-- specifically to address a single individual (and simultaneously pander to the same base who today have largely become Trumpkins). This was about a fight between parents who wanted to pull the plug on their daughter in a coma (in accordance with her wishes) vs. rando evangelicals who wanted to keep her alive, because Jesus.
The big news at the time was that this amounted to a bill of attainder, which is when I was like "what the heck is that"...
Turns out you can't write laws to punish individuals or groups directly... which is why so many laws are written by lobbyists to narrowly describe situations/scenarios/qualities that happen to affect only one group.
from google:
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill 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.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.