I don’t care where you stand on the whole AIG bonus flap. Doesn’t matter whether you think those employees should keep the money or give it back.
This should scare you more than any of that noise:
At Michelle Malkin’s place there is a list of the 85 Republicans Traitors who sided with the majority of the House Democrats to completely ignore the Constitution of the United States of America.
Evidently, these assholes have never heard of a Bill of Attainder.
Evidently, these assholes have never heard the term Ex Post Facto.
Sweet baby Jesus on a pogo stick, I am not even a lawyer (like 99.9% of those dumbasses) and I can read that shit right there in the Constitution.
But its no big deal right? Because you and I are not one of those AIG employees, right?
- “In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
- And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
- And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
- And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
- - Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
Yeah, I know, hyperbole…But that poem was about when they were taking away people – and no one spoke up. How far do you think they can and will go when they are just taking away “stuff” if no one calls them on it?
Do we really want this asshole right here deciding what we get to earn and keep?
March 20, 2009 at 9:54 am |
Curtis, I doubt this comes close to being an Ex Post Facto law, and therefore unconstitutional. An Ex Post Facto law makes some activity a crime, and allows for the punishment of that activity which occurred before it was made criminal. Congress hasn’t made anything criminal here, so it’s not an Ex Post Facto law.
The bill passed by the House of Reps isn’t out of the woods yet. The Bill of Attainder issue is a closer call. I’ve just started digging around so I can’t really comment yet.
March 20, 2009 at 11:41 am |
Yeah, I thought as much when I read Article 9 again, it does specifically address criminal activity.
So, while not in contravention of the Constitution on that point, I still think it is in contravention of the values of a capitalist society built within the framework of a constitutional republic.
We are a nation of laws. Once the lawmakers can capriciously change those laws to target a particular individual or group for behaviour they don’t like, we are all in trouble.
March 22, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
Okay, so what about the Eighth Amendment:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”.
It’s entirely possible that even the Slumocrats might find aggregate rates of 102% on income to be excessive and punitive.
And certainly, to tax someone by more than the whole at original issue, is at its very core a penalty, which in fact evokes the whole expost facto point of law, in especial because these people did not violate any law – quite the contrary, Congress specifically and at the behest of the President’s branch of government, LEGALIZED the bonuses.
Shades of Sulla’s Rome.