I don't have time for this, but I can't resist. Mark's comment pushed a button 
activating my musty repertoire of Constitutional trivia.  

An obscure, never used portion of our Constitution - Article 3 Section 3 
Paragraph 2 of the Constitution itself (not the bill of rights) prohibits 
"forfeiture of estate" and "corruption of blood" as punishment for treason -- 
except during the lifetime of the convicted traitor.  Treason was considered the 
most horrendous of crimes, and we can imply they meant to ban those practices 
outright, but the language of that section does not specifically ban those types 
of forfeiture for lesser offenses.  We would have to delve into early American 
history to get the complete meaning.  

Under the doctrine of "forfeiture of estate" all of the convicted felon's 
personal property and real estate was forfeited. This was a British concept 
which was rejected by the Colonists.

"Corruption of blood" barred the felon's heirs from inheriting from the 
convicted felon.  

Article 3 section 3 paragraph 2 prohibits "corruption of blood except during the 
lifetime of the person attainted" ("attainted" meant convicted.)  In my opinion, 
that means the attainted traitor could lose his property to forfeiture but when 
the traitor died, his heirs could inherit it.  

There was a U.S. Supreme Court case handed down after reconstruction that 
interpreted this provision.  The case involved the forfeiture of the real estate 
of a Confederate soldier for treason.  After the property was forfeited to the 
federal government, the soldier died and his heirs sued, arguing that it would 
be a "corruption of blood" to prevent the soldier's heirs from inheriting the 
property, since the Constitution prohibited a corruption of blood except during 
the lifetime of the person attainted.

Brenda

P.S. I'm probably opening up a can of worms here, talking about "attainder." 
There are some people on the internet who think all forfeiture is 
unconstitutional because it is a "bill of attainder."  I disagree.  

From my understanding, after researching this pretty thoroughly about 10 years 
ago, an "attainder" meant a conviction -- whether by the court or by legislative 
decree.  A "bill of attainder" is a piece of legislation passed by Congress 
declaring someone or some identifiable class of people guilty of a crime without 
any adjudication by the court.  The bill of attainder in issue there was the 
bill passed by Congress which declared all former Confederate soldiers 
"traitors" and forfeited their lands. 


> Leon,
> 
> Isn't this a revival of the old "corruption of blood" doctrine of English
> forfeiture law that the US constitution supposedly abolishes?
> 
> Well, like Jay Leno says, we might as well give the US Constitution to
> Iraq--it's not being used in the USA anymore.
> 
> Mark
> 
> ===================================
> Mark Nestmann
> Editorial Director
> The Sovereign Society
> assetpro@nestmann.com
> www.sovereignsociety.com
> 
> Any and all communications from an agent of The Sovereign Society should not
> be considered personalized investment advice.   Although agents may answer
> your general customer service questions, they are not licensed under
> securities laws to address your particular investment situation.  No
> communication by our agents to you should be deemed as personalized
> investment advice.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-fear-list@mapinc.org [mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org]On
> Behalf Of Leon
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 2:24 PM
> To: fear-list@mapinc.org; fear-talk@mapinc.org
> Subject: FEAR: Proposed VICTORY ACT is on line
> 
> 
> 
> Head School Marm, Senator Hatch, has created another freedom buster bomb,
> the "VICTORY ACT" , and it is online at
> http://www.libertythink.com/VICTORYAct.pdf.
> 
> Of course this act has as much to do with 'victory' as the PATRIOT ACT had
> to do with patriotism. Zilch. But what it does have is 52 references to
> 'forfeiture' (according to my computer search), including such jewels as
> this one:
> 
> "SEC. 236. NON-ABATEMENT OF CRIMINAL FORFEITURE 14
> WHEN DEFENDANT DIES PENDING APPEAL. 15
> Section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 16
> U.S.C. 853), as amended by sections 234 and 236, is fur- 17
> ther amended by adding at the end the following: 18
> ??(r) NON-ABATEMENT OF FORFEITURE ORDER.? 19
> An order of forfeiture that has been made part of a crimi- 20
> nal sentence under this section shall not abate by reason 21
> of the death thereafter of any or all of the defendants or 22
> petitioners or potential petitioners, regardless of any ap- 23
> peal that may be pending at the time of death.??. 24
> 
> Makes sense. If forfeiture is to be the ultimate tool for fighting
> criminals, you can't let them get away just because they up and die on you!
> 
> Leon
> 
> 
> 
> ******************************************************
> FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists
> List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=subscribe
> Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=gest
> ******************************************************
> 
>