The Framers were spare of words but were so disgusted with such practices that they repeated themselves on this issue. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states:* "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,"* and Section 10 explicitly says:* "No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder."*

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.

"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. 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.

This is not settled law that citizens might reasonably abide by but arbitrary and capricious actions of an uncontrolled and unsettled government. HB06-1267 was written to patch holes and mistakes in SB05-181, which was written to fix problems with previous bills, and so on. And the whole child support system is dysfunctional and bureaucratic enforcement has made family issues worse. This a not a problem that will be solved by bills of attainder.

And what better description of the bureaucratic nightmare of the multi-billion dollar child support enforcement industry than:

"...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."

Such profound insight makes me ever more proud to be a heir of the great genius that helped establish this nation, and ever more disgusted with the pandering politicians sitting in the Colorado legislature doing the bidding of self-serving bureaucrats whose task in life is to destroy men, families, and children.

Further, there can be no specious claim that child support is entirely a civil matter. Criminal penalties and incarceration are inherent in these bills if a targeted party fails to comply, and forced labor, indeed slavery, is certainly punishment for those many unfortunates caught up by paternity fraud and denied judicial remedy by SB05-181 and HB06-1267.

The problems with HB06-1267 and its progenitors seem to be obvious to everyone but Senator Mitchell and his compatriots. Again, if you would like to comment on this bill, child support enforcement, or paternity fraud problems, do a REPLY ALL to this message. *Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.*