Congress is scaring me
We don’t need no stinking constitution:
The House has voted overwhelmingly to enact an ex post facto fine masquerading as a tax, a bill of attainder, and a taking without just (or even unjust) compensation rolled into one.
This is dangerous, folks.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
The Lautenburg Amendment is clearly ex post facto, but we’ve seen just how far the Supreme Court is willing to contort itself in order to uphold bad laws that have popular support because they are seen as “doing something”.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I thought the Constitution allow all monies raised for the federal level to be done by those Congress weenies.
I could be wrong on that. I do, however, agree that what they are doing is not right(substitute big word of choice).
Kick the bastards out.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Any day now we’ll see Directive 10-289 put into place.
Vote the bastards we can out on 2Nov. 2010. Maybe they won’t suspend elections before then.
“I presume that in general those who meddle with public affairs sometimes perish miserably, and that they deserve it.” – Voltaire, Candide. 1759.
Regards,
Rabbit.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
How is this dangerous? Some have interpreted the surtax as being unconstitutional. Those people will have their day in court after the legislation has been signed. If they are right, the tax will be repealed. If they are wrong, the tax stays.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
And either the federal government wins and decides that the laws in place when you got your money can be retroactivly taxed (so in 3 years Obama can say, since we are not getting enough taxes in we will just hike the taxes from previous years that you already paid) or the execs win, and not only has taxpayer money been given to the execs as bonuses but then the court costs will go to their lawyers.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Manish – are you really that simple minded?
Remember all the sales tax you paid on items you bought last year? We’ve decided to up the rate another 2%. We’ll be by later to pick it up.
I wouldn’t be that trusting of the courts either. If they were that good we woulnd’t need appeals and an amendment process.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Manish – there is no interpretation to discuss – this kind of law is explicitly forbidden.
“No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
Hard to believe these people raised their hand and swore an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. They just wiped their asses with it. It isn’t just the Courts that are supposed to protect the Constitution – it is the job of all three branches.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I wasn’t sure if the bonuses had been paid yet or not, if they had been it would be a ex post facto law and un-Constitutional, but also in the bailout bill that the banks begged for and the traitors in DC gave them had wording to make it an open ended and VERY fluid in what could be required later. I know that no matter what law is passed, if it goes contrary to the Constitution it is automatically null and void, I just hate myself for having to defend these guys…I guess if I look at it as defending the Supreme Law of the Land it will be more palatable.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
This is one of the oldest tricks around…problem-reaction-solution. Congress does these bailouts with fait Federal Reserve (neither) money and then ex post facto makes it illegal to have it with an after the fact confiscatory tax. However much you hate the evil rich recipients of bonuses…who will be next (you may be next) on the unapproved list of the renegades in Washington? The Supreme Court should slap this down 9-0!
March 20th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Nevermind, I just read Sean B’s blog, and he agrees with the ex post facto law (He cleared it up for me, any bonuses paid after Dec 31st 2008…isn’t it march now?) So yes congress-traitors can go suck a bag of dicks and the supremes should dump this garbage.
March 20th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
It shouldn’t get to the SC.
The members of the House that supported that bill have knowingly violated the Constitution. They should be held liable for their actions.
… but, as we’ve seen, they aren’t like you and me – they’re better …
March 20th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Yeah _Jon,
If I refuse to do my according to my job description and duties, I get fired. But like you say, they’re above that…and what happened to “the equal protection of the laws” in the 14th Amendment??/ Oh yeah, that’s one of the two amemdments that SUPPOSEDLY ended slavery
March 20th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
i think you are confusing the terminology. This isn’t an Ex Post Facto law, it is a Bill of Attainder. Ex Post Facto is a law that makes something illegal in the past. it allows for a person to be prosecuted in court for doing something in the past that wasn’t a crime when he did it. a Bill of Attainder is a law where the legislative branch usurps the power of the judiciary and simply declares someone guilty and imposes sentence. in this case the legislature has determined that the AIG bonus recipients are guilty and to be fined 90% of their bonus. in either case it is unconstitutional.
March 20th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
It is not the job of the government to protect the Constitution. The job of the government is to carry out its duties as delineated in the Constitution.
The protection of the Constitution is the rightful job of the People, if and when the government oversteps its authority under that document.
Neither the government nor the People seem to be doing their job, and both seem to like it fine that way.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Seriously? You know that I like you, right? But seriously?
March 20th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Oh come on!!! Does anyone here really think criminal gangs don’t change even their own bylaws, let alone external laws, to their advantage when they wish to enhance profit and power?
Does anyone here really think Congress isn’t a criminal gang?
March 20th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Those people will have their day in court after the legislation has been signed. If they are right, the tax will be repealed. If they are wrong, the tax stays.
I see. So by a nation of laws you mean that when the government breaks the law you have to sue to get your rights back?
Why should anyone have to sue to protect their rights under the law? Isn’t the government suppose to uphold the law?
That is the problem. People have forgotten how this works. Manish, you are part of the problem.
We are heading down a dangerous path.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
And this is why Democrats can hang on to power when they get it. . . and why Republicans cannot.
How many Secret Service visits occurred due to Bushhitler bumperstickers? How many have occurred due to much milder anti-O bumperstickers? (2 that I have heard of in the last month)
If the Republicans governed like the Dems, then we would have seen:
Severe Anti-trust law enforced against major media and Hollywood. Ironically, this might have saved the newspapers in the U.S. as well as draining financial resources from the Left to defend their strongholds.
Movement to remove ALL gun control back to 1880’s. Not because it could seriously pass, but because it would (again) drain the finances of the political opposition grass roots.
Movement to repeal endangered species act Again, not because we want that. . . we don’t. But fighting it would take a lot of money that otherwise flows into the Democratic election machine. Force it to flow into the Sierra Club Legal Defense fund instead. And force them to spend it. All of it.
Propose and introduce laws to require all state governments to kill all reintroduced wildlife so only the REAL endangered species have protection, not the reintroduced brood. Introduce a death sentence for doctors who perform abortion. Introduce strict liability for people who, as part of their work or volunteer efforts suggest that people be unarmed as part of their standard advice so victims (and lawyers) have more targets to sue. THIS IS HOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING IT. While you are giving more money to NRA-ILA to defend a specifically enumerated right the Democrats are robbing our children and grandchildren blind. How much have they stolen while you read this? Instead, we choose to ‘compromise’ and ‘govern from the center’. Governing from the center encourages the opponent to go to the extremes so they can pull the so-called center to where they want it. How many gun control laws in your lifetime have resulted in a net increase in your liberty?
The problem is, with Republicans like Ted Stevens and Olympia Snowe . . . we really don’t want them in office either. It’s kind of a <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kang_and_Kodos” Kang v. Kodos situation. We need more grass roots involvement in the form of qualified people running for office. Instead of the 3 percenters debate, we should all be 3% ready for anything and 100% dedicated to political activism.
p.s. I even called my state senator today on a gun control issue. Not that he cares. (He doesn’t, I’ve met him).
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 am
Congress passes laws concerning the current tax year all the time…the AMT always gets “fixed” days before tax forms are getting sent out. As to the bill of attainder bit..I’m no legal expert, but I’m also not so sure. The inheritance tax applies to people above a certain amount..one could argue that targets certain people..different types of companies get different types of taxes and tax breaks. Where is the line where it goes from o.k. to targeting a particular set of people?
March 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 am
Hell, this is easy. All Congress has to do is repeal the entire “Bailout Bill” and re-enact it by sections, after reading and debate. It has to be done sooner or later anyway; doing it now is the only way for Dems not to appear culprits in the long run. They can then just skip over the whole payment-to-AIG thing, set an interest rate and payoff date for monies already distributed, and sleep better at night, without the pine-tar torches and clatter of pitchforks outside.
I’m going to hold my breath while I wait.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I think Manish could take over Geithner’s job and we’d all be in safe hands.