context: Given the obvious constraints on the usefulness of legislative history as an indicator of Congress's collective purpose, this prong by itself is not determinative in the absence of "unmistakable evidence of punitive intent."
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 66 S.Ct. 1077, 1077, 1078
citation_a.parenthetical: finding an employment ban to constitute a bill of attainder where committee reports characterized the affected persons as "subversive" and "unfit" for government service
citation_a.sentence: See Lovett, 328 U.S. at 312, 314, 66 S.Ct. at 1077, 1078 (finding an employment ban to constitute a bill of attainder where committee reports characterized the affected persons as “subversive” and “unfit” for government service); cf. Nixon, 433 U.S. at 479, 97 S.Ct. at 2808-09 (finding no bill of attainder where the relevant committee reports “cast no aspersions on appellant’s personal conduct and contained] no condemnation of his behavior as meriting the infliction of punishment”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 433 U.S. 479, 479
citation_b.parenthetical: finding no bill of attainder where the relevant committee reports "cast no aspersions on appellant's personal conduct and contained] no condemnation of his behavior as meriting the infliction of punishment"
citation_b.sentence: See Lovett, 328 U.S. at 312, 314, 66 S.Ct. at 1077, 1078 (finding an employment ban to constitute a bill of attainder where committee reports characterized the affected persons as “subversive” and “unfit” for government service); cf. Nixon, 433 U.S. at 479, 97 S.Ct. at 2808-09 (finding no bill of attainder where the relevant committee reports “cast no aspersions on appellant’s personal conduct and contained] no condemnation of his behavior as meriting the infliction of punishment”).