While I’m on the subject of words and phrases, this post from Keith Hennessey on the comparative voting records of the Republican and Democratic caucuses in the Congress on trade bills is interesting. As I presume will surprise no one, Republicans vote overwhelmingly in favor of these bills while the Democrats have voted more or less against although without the consistency of Republicans on the matter. As Will Rogers wisecracked eighty years ago when asked if he were a member of an organized political party, “No, sir. I’m a Democrat”.
However, I have some problems on characterizing these trade bills as “free trade” legislation. You can write a free trade agreement on the back of a business card. When the bills and agreements run into the hundreds or even thousands of pages, you can be pretty confident that they aren’t about free trade but on managed trade and the precise terms under which it will be managed.
Clearly, the Republicans and Democrats disagree over what those terms should be. I wish there were better coverage over just what the disagreements were rather than the ordinary tribal chanting. I’d genuinely like to know.
On something of a disgression whatever became of the constitutional proscription of bills of attainder? Modern legislation seems to be full of them without much of a peep about it. We don’t even seem to be pretending any more.
Bills of Attainder = (1) Punishment of (2) an identifiable target.
I looked up the Terry Schiavo law last night, which would be a good example of a law with an identifiable target, but it doesn’t appear that the courts ruled on bills of attainder grounds (the law was unconstitutional primarily for separation of powers grounds). I think the notion of “punishment” is limited and backward looking.