That is correct. Legislators introduce special bills dealing with single individuals all the time.
The old Bill of Attainder "attainted" a "traitor" or person in disfavor with the King, his property (often that was big bucks, or pounds) and title were forfeit to the crown and his head was chopped off.
The framers wanted to make sure Congress couldn't do this to them.
Laws favoring specific individuals by name, e.g., with immigration status, are not uncommon. I think they are called "special" bills, that is, that is how they are referred to.
jks
--- knowknot at mindspring.com wrote:
> On 3/25/05, you wrote to the LBO List:
>
> > My understanding(not much) is Bills of Attainder
> > are *punitive* laws that apply to one specific
> > person . . . . but I haven't followed the
> constitutional
> > ins and outs of it . . . .
>
> Those interested in the "constitutional ins and
> outs" might want to read
> the brief submitted by Michael Schiavo's attorneys
> and the ACLU in
> opposition to the Schindlers' lawsuit, which
> (especially at pp. 34-46)
> summarizes their arguments why Pub. Law. 109-3 (the
> statute "For the relief
> of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo" passed last
> week under color of
> which the federal litigation has been conducted) is
> unconstitutional.
>
> Among the on line sources for this purpose is:
>
>
>
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/index.html
>
> ======================================
>
> There is not need to respond/acknowledge as,
> instead, either read the
> cited materials, or don't, as you wish.
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/