SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY

Social welfare Policy

Social welfare Policy

A Bill of Attainder is briefly defined as a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. HB06-1267 clearly singles out men accused of siring a child and widows of men accused of siring a child and denies them judicial remedies. "Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166. Or listen to James Madison in 1788 when he published Federalist Papers, no. 44 "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils (Therborn, 2006).

They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." With regard to "fluctuating policy" and "sudden changes and legislative interferences" I note that SB05-181 only became fully effective on January 1, 2006, and the current Bill of Attainder, HB06-1267 was quickly introduced on February 1st, * just one month later*, to correct flaws in SB05-181.

Aware of the problem of a lack of minimum standards of evidence or transparency in listing process, and given the relatively high number of individuals on the list, the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs commissioned a study on the question: "Is the UN Security Council... obliged to ensure that rights of due process, or 'fair and clear procedures', are made available to individuals and entities directly targeted with sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter?"

The report, published in March 2006, was purely theoretical and made no reference to any of the cases. While acknowledging the fact that the UN was a supra-national body to which none of the human rights treaties were targeted, it did find that there were "legitimate expectations that the UN itself, when its action has a direct impact on the rights and freedoms of an individual, observes standards of due process... on which the person concerned can rely." The fact that "Member States have no authority to review the names of individuals and entities specified by the responsible committee of the Security Council, with the aim of ascertaining [their need to be sanctioned]", meant that people who are targeted need to express their rights before the council. These were that they be informed of the measures taken against them as soon as possible, and that they be able to bring their case before an impartial judge

The debate on each stage is actually debate on a specific motion. For the first reading, there is no debate. For the second reading, the motion is "That this bill be ...