Bennis v. Michigan opened the door to Bills of Pain and Penalty in the USA

In US v. Brown (1965) the court held that any statute making a class is a violation of Article I sec 9 against Bills of Attainder. In that case the law making it illegal for a member of the communist party to hold an office was challenged. Thus the Bill of Attainder Clause not only was intended as one implementation of the general principle of fractionalized power, but also reflected the Framers' belief that the Legislative Branch is not so well suited as politically independent judges and juries to the task of ruling upon the blameworthiness, of, and levying appropriate punishment upon, specific persons. (US v Brown) Justice Thomas states in his concurring opinion As the Court notes, evasion of the normal requirement of proof before punishment might well seem "unfair." (emp added) Ante, at 11. One unaware of the history of forfeiture laws and 200 years of this Court's precedent regarding such laws might well assume that such a scheme is lawless--a violation of due process. The Court is upholding taking without a requirement of Proof. The Court in this case, is about making LEGAL and lawful that which seems lawless. “…to have the car declared a public nuisance and abated as such..." First, to support the majority decision, the Court cited Admiralty Law from 1827 re. Piracy and privateers. Thus, the high seas of the early nineteenth century are compared with the streets of Detroit Michigan. The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1 (1827) Next, the Justice cites a tax case Dobbins's Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. 395, 401 (1878) where the Court took the real property of an individual for taxes due from the tenant. The Court then makes an interesting jump to Contract Law where part of the purchase contract involved continued use by the seller. Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U.S. 465 (1926) and "It has long been settled that statutory forfeitures of property entrusted by the innocent owner or lienor to another who uses it in violation of the revenue laws... ” I point out that that this is about REVENUE laws, taxes of the time. The Court then Jumps to Drug laws combined with Admiralty Law Calero Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974). A small amount of residual cannabis being found on a yacht, well known for its transport of drugs was seized. The Court then held that in order for an act of taking without trial to be lawless in must be for the purpose of punishment, if for any other reason it is permissible. This is the rationale of the Court in its majority opinion which in practice becomes, if a group is engaging in actions or behavior we do not like we can recover costs by taking property. The State here sought to deter illegal activity that contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. The Bennis automobile, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity. Both the trial court and the Michigan Supreme Court followed our longstanding practice, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan The Court states that the taking of property is to deter illegal activity, so long as said activity contributes to neighborhood deterioration and unsafe streets. In Bennis the issue is forfeiture or property. The forfeiture is without trial, and in all fifty states is now done based on the statement of a Police officer and/or failure to file the proper forms. Thus we now have classes or groups of people who are routinely “punished” to get a cleaned up neighborhood. These classes include, but are not limited to, those who seem to be: Drug Users, or looking for paid for sex, driving w/o insurance, etc. Other areas where this case has recently been used are noncriminal offences where cities can increase revenue and “clean things up”. The offense that started this case was and is a misdemeanor. The Court has legalized on US streets, through admiralty law regarding pirates, nuisance laws intended for tax collection before income and property taxes, Drug Laws used to sieze foreign ships and finally through the court’s use of “remedial rather than punitive” the government may now take our property to conform our behaviors. A bill Pain and Penalty is the same as a Bill of Attainder but without the execution. I have shown that this case permits jurisdictions in the United States to take property from its citizens without a trial or a finding of guilt but simply because an individual engages in behavior deemed, at that time, negative to the neighborhood so long as the taking is not punitive. In its goodness the Court kept the trial for the other punishment so one might lose a house and be found not guilty. Justice tevens put it best ... the Court errs today by assuming that the power to seize property is virtually unlimited...