There are a few provisions of the US Constitution which are rarely mentioned in even rigorous Con Law classes in Law School.  The reasons are myriad and include that the evil against which it was to guard is no longer present or the Supreme Court has rendered a decision with such a hard, "bright line" that it is avoided.    The prohibition against the enactment of Bills of Attainder is one such provision  The Supreme Court issued a very hard, "bright line" decision about 60 years ago. The professional Congressional bill drafters are well aware of it and know how to avoid it--note emphasis on professional.   The Senate and House enacted amendments to different bills this past week purporting to bar an organization called ACORN from receiving Federal funds.  The Senate provision contains the precise formulation which the Supreme Court struck down 60 years ago as a Bill of Attainder.    The House provision makes an attempt to avoid this Constitutional prohibition but most attorneys I have talked with attorneys familiar with this clause (and there are very few in this category--I know of two in addition to myself but there are a few others I am certain) do not think it succeeded. One has expressed the opinion that the provision is so poorly drafted that it would apply to any organization which has an employee under indictment and would include, for example, any financial institution  with FDIC insured deposits.  The basic opinion is that the House provision, in order to avoid the Bill of Attainder absolute prohibition, must apply to more than ACORN; if it only applies to ACORN, which is named in the House amendment, then it falls afoul of the prohibition.  The "bright line" is the naming of specific organizations or individuals.   It will be difficult to fix this provision, and I am not certain it can be fixed.  In any event, it will be a boon to those who write articles for law journals and are looking for a topic upon which there is little analysis.