“A bill of attainder, as thought of in the United States to-day, would be such law as permitted a person charged with the commission of a crime, to be tried and found guilty and sentenced without being present at the trial.” It is one of the rules of procedure in court to-day that in all criminal cases the person charged with crime must be present during the entire trial. Another fundamental judicial fact is that all criminal punishment terminates with the death of the person found guilty; his children are exempt.
“An ex-post-facto law is a law which in its operation makes an act criminal which was not criminal at the time the act was committed, or provides a more severe punishment for criminal acts already committed, or changes the rules of procedure so as to make it more difficult for one accused of crime to defend in a prosecution of such crime.” “The prohibition relates to retroactive criminal statutes providing a punishment for an act previously committed or increasing the punishment making it more difficult for the accused to defend, but not to retroactive laws, even though criminal, which mitigate the punishment or merely change or regulate the procedure without imposing any additional substantial burden on the accused in making his defense.”—Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. I, p. 700.
We should keep in mind that both “bills of attainder” and “ex post facto” laws have only to do with crimes and their punishment. These laws do not relate to civil matters.
Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Sec. 8.
Titles of nobility as recognized in many European countries include the following: duke, earl, marquis, viscount, and baron. These titles were in part hereditary and in part acquired. They always conferred special privileges both in rank and in political preferment. Such titles cannot exist in a democracy because they in their very nature destroy equality before the law, and that is the fundamental principle of democratic government.
“The provisions prohibiting the granting of titles of nobility are designed, no doubt, first to preserve equality before the law, and second, to secure in perpetuity a republican form of government. Such provisions are not essential to theoretical equality before the law, for such equality is fundamental in the law of England notwithstanding the existence of titles of nobility. But the framers of the Constitution evidently contemplated a form of government in which there should be no special privileges conferred by rank or title. The additional provision in the Federal Constitution prohibiting the acceptance by any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States of any present, emolument, office or title from any foreign sovereign or power without the consent of Congress, was probably intended to prevent the exercise of foreign influence in governmental affairs. These articles in the Constitution are substantially borrowed from the Articles of Confederation.”—Emlin McClain, quoted in the Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. II, p. 58.
Constitution of the United States, Art. III, Sec. 3, Cl. 1.
Treason is defined in this article of the Constitution and therefore Congress cannot define it in any other manner. Many people use the word “treason” very loosely. They often speak of a person committing treason when the act committed is not treasonable at all, but is some less severe crime. Treason consists only in levying war against the United States or in giving aid or comfort to enemies of the United States.
The meaning of “two witnesses to the same overt act” is that the Constitution requires that two persons will appear in court and swear to the fact that they personally saw the act committed. “Overt act” means “openly committed act”. Chief Justice John Marshall knew that in the trial of Aaron Burr it would be impossible to get two persons to swear to having seen Burr commit the conspiracy, so he took advantage of the technicality in the indictment and threw the case out of court. This trial was held at Richmond, Virginia.
“Confession in open court” is about the only instance in which such confession will convict a person charged with committing a crime. As a rule a person's own confession will not be accepted as evidence against him, in criminal prosecutions, because few confessions are made without some threat or inducement and under the guaranty (p. 99) that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself they are excluded.