Can a Constitutional Amendment be a Bill of Attainder in the US?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I know that the US Constitution prohibited both the states and the federal government from passing Bills of Attainder since when it was originally written. But suppose that instead of passing a Bill of Attainder by Statuary Law, it was passed by a Constitutional Amendment. Is there anything in place preventing such a Constitutional Amendment from being enforced?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Procedurally, there's nothing barring such an amendment, but I can't see the circumstances likely to lead to such a thing. Historically, bills of attainder were passed primarily for two reasons. One was to quickly punish a group of people who had engaged in rebellion. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment can be viewed as a bill of attainder against former Confederates, albeit a very mild one, tho it functioned more as an ex post facto law, since it doesn't name specific persons. However, leaving aside questions of separation of powers, justice and equity, passing an amendment certainly wouldn't be quick. The other major use was to deprive a person and their heirs of a title of nobility, which are already barred from existing, so not needed in the American context.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The whole purpose of passing constitutional amendments is to alter the original provisions, so yes. I can see people making arguments there's a conflict with the constitutional requirements for due process, but if the amendment clearly states a bill of attainder is allowed, I guess the argument ends here, as you can't declare a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional.

I, for one, would welcome the Congress being able to pass a bill of attainder against flat earthers