View Full Version : Congress tries to enact Bill of Attainder
Gutshot John
03-19-09, 17:52
I'm wondering where the outrage is that Congress is trying to enact a Bill of Attainder.
If they can do it to AIG (assuming the SCOTUS doesn't eviscerate it) they can do it to anyone.
losbronces
03-19-09, 18:10
This won't stand, it is expressly prohibited in the Constitution. I think its all for showanyway. Congress is focused on $165 million in bonus money when they did more than $8 billion in "ear marks." Congress is trying to show they are doing something. Kind of like holding hearings on steroids in baseball when the housing market was imploding in most of the U.S.
Gutshot John
03-19-09, 18:14
This won't stand, it is expressly prohibited in the Constitution. I think its all for showanyway. Congress is focused on $165 million in bonus money when they did more than $8 billion in "ear marks." Congress is trying to show they are doing something. Kind of like holding hearings on steroids in baseball when the housing market was imploding in most of the U.S.
It probably will not stand, but I'm amazed that given all the puffery that goes on about protecting the Constitution that such an egregious violation didn't garner more outrage.
I submit that people only pay attention to violations that they care about, but are perfectly willing to overlook things when it either suits their purposes, or are completely ignorant about how significant such a writ is.
It's essentially Congress not only declaring something illegal post facto, but also punishing someone and seizing property without a trial.
If Congress passes this and the President signs it...well it's overtly trampling on the Constitution. Woe to any republican that dares vote for it.
This is exactly why we have judicial review.
I'm wondering where the outrage is that Congress is trying to enact a Bill of Attainder.
If they can do it to AIG (assuming the SCOTUS doesn't eviscerate it) they can do it to anyone.
My thoughts exactly. Regardless of ones opinions about the AIG bonuses, this is a really, really outlandish move by Congress. I said from the beginning that any company taking any of that "bailout money" was making a proverbial deal with the devil and they would regret it. Now Congress is claiming "majority ownership rights" of AIG...
It's essentially Congress not only declaring something illegal post facto, but also punishing someone and seizing property without a trial.
If Congress passes this and the President signs it...well it's overtly trampling on the Constitution.
I don't think I'd be too radical in saying that this is the sort of thing that has sparked revolutions.
This is exactly why we have judicial review.
I have few doubts that Congress will pass it. I just hope that the Supreme Court orders an injunction against it and then strikes it down quickly.
I hate to say it, but 99% of the public has no clue what a bill of attainder is, the fact that it's prohibited, or the reasons why it's prohibited.
So I would say there is a 99% chance this measure stands if nominally enacted by Congress and signed by the Obamessiah. I still have no idea why Congress is bitching at AIG when the bonuses were contractually required, are a drop in the bucket, and were probably based on contracts negotiated waaaay before any of this crisis/bailout crap.
This reminds me of a parent who gives a child a $1000 allowance and then yells when the kid spends $2 on candy instead of some other investment that was never made a condition of the allowance. Next time just don't give them the ****ing money.
Gutshot John
03-19-09, 19:59
I don't think I'd be too radical in saying that this is the sort of thing that has sparked revolutions.
At least once in our history. More recently it's EXACTLY what Hitler did to the jews.
I hate to say it, but 99% of the public has no clue what a bill of attainder is, the fact that it's prohibited, or the reasons why it's prohibited.
99% of the public is one thing, but the conspicuous silence from "gun-rights" advocates and other self-professed authorities on the Constitution is shocking.
I mean look at all the whining about Posse Comitatus and that's not even in the Constitution.
So I would say there is a 99% chance this measure stands if nominally enacted by Congress and signed by the Obamessiah.
That should send a chill down anyone's spine who owns a gun, who could wake up tomorrow to find themselves...
I'm frankly appalled by my countrymen. They will get exactly what they deserve if they let this stand. This goes WELL BEYOND a simple AWB. :mad:
I also am shocked at how much this has dominated in the past few days; I have even read on other gun forums, members are actually in favor of this **** going through.
It really is outrageous that Congress is trying to pull this crap.
Cruncher Block
03-19-09, 21:08
It probably will not stand, but I'm amazed that given all the puffery that goes on about protecting the Constitution that such an egregious violation didn't garner more outrage.
I submit that people only pay attention to violations that they care about, but are perfectly willing to overlook things when it either suits their purposes, or are completely ignorant about how significant such a writ is.
It's essentially Congress not only declaring something illegal post facto, but also punishing someone and seizing property without a trial.
If Congress passes this and the President signs it...well it's overtly trampling on the Constitution. Woe to any republican that dares vote for it.
This is exactly why we have judicial review.
Personally, I am filled with disgust at the situation. I am disappointed that the bulk of the American public apparently lacks the Constitutional literacy to understand the seriousness of it.
I haven't posted about it here because... well... you can kind of select from a large menu of outrages these days. I figure most of what I could post would either be preaching to the converted or making enemies I don't need. :)
I don't think I'd be too radical in saying that this is the sort of thing that has sparked revolutions.
Would I be too radical to say that I think I'm almost to the point of crossing my fingers on this?
Gutshot John
03-19-09, 22:48
Would I be too radical to say that I think I'm almost to the point of crossing my fingers on this?
Why would you cross your fingers for such a thing? Unfortunately revolutions, once begun are not so easily contained. That cure may indeed be worse than the disease.
Historically you're far more likely to get a Caesar, Bonaparte or Lenin than you are a Washington.
A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act declaring someone guilty of a crime and punishing him for it. That is not what happened here.
Taxation is not, as a general rule, considered punishment. The House did not declare anyone guilty of a crime. It simply passed a bill to change the tax laws so that certain income for certain people would be taxed at a much higher rate than other people's income.
I'm not suggesting it was prudent, fair, or even necessarily constitutional.
Decent article to educate those who are unsure of what you're talking about... http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200903191959DOWJONESDJONLINE001032_FORTUNE5.htm
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-19-09, 23:41
A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act declaring someone guilty of a crime and punishing him for it. That is not what happened here.
Taxation is not, as a general rule, considered punishment. The House did not declare anyone guilty of a crime. It simply passed a bill to change the tax laws so that certain income for certain people would be taxed at a much higher rate than other people's income.
I'm not suggesting it was prudent, fair, or even necessarily constitutional.
What is the rationale besides punishment? Can't wait for this to end up in the courts.
Molon Labe
A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act declaring someone guilty of a crime and punishing him for it. That is not what happened here.
Taxation is not, as a general rule, considered punishment. The House did not declare anyone guilty of a crime. It simply passed a bill to change the tax laws so that certain income for certain people would be taxed at a much higher rate than other people's income.
I'm not suggesting it was prudent, fair, or even necessarily constitutional.
It's also retroactive and only pertains to a certain very small segment of the population at specific companies... 90% taxation sounds like punishment to me.
"Our message is clear: If you won't give the bonuses back, we will tax them back," Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., said at a Wednesday press conference to announce the legislation.
What is the rationale besides punishment?
That government bail-out money was distributed in an inappropriate way and the government wants it back.
I'm not saying I agree with what the House did. I just don't think it falls under "bill of attainder" status.
Business_Casual
03-20-09, 07:57
I still have no idea why Congress is bitching at AIG when the bonuses were contractually required, are a drop in the bucket, and were probably based on contracts negotiated waaaay before any of this crisis/bailout crap.
It is quite simply to distract you from the $1,000,000,000,000 that the Fed just printed to "monetize" debt.
If everyone understood where that it taking us, you wouldn't hear a peep about the bonus situation.
M_P
It is quite simply to distract you from the $1,000,000,000,000 that the Fed just printed to "monetize" debt.
If everyone understood where that it taking us, you wouldn't hear a peep about the bonus situation.
M_P
Truth.
This AIG thing blew up on Wednesday...same day that the Fed kicked their printers into sixth gear.
Thing is, the way things are right now, if they didn't even bother trying to smokescreen the Fed's actions on Wednesday, the a good percentage of this country would likely not understand and/or care.
Gutshot John
03-20-09, 09:16
A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act declaring someone guilty of a crime and punishing him for it. That is not what happened here.
Taxation is not, as a general rule, considered punishment.
Todd, I think you'd agree that I'm anything but a raving government conspiracist, but in this case they are indeed overtly (if not knowingly) undermining the Constitution. For what? Political grandstanding because they made a law they wish they hadn't? Someone needs to run the BS flag up the Capitol dome. Except in this case BS implies a grandiosity that is clearly not fair to BSers everywhere. In this case the small minded and ignoble action is more akin to chicken****.
Taxation is the seizure of property. You cannot seize seize property/punish without due process. Taxation when applied to the whole populace is not punishment if those people elected their representatives, however in this case it is meant as punishment against a narrow group. Applying it only to a limited segment of the population is clearly meant as punishment and denying the taxees due process is indeed a bill of attainder.
Implicit in your description of bill of attainder and even more onerous is that the law is being applied ex post facto (an overlapping Constitutional prohibition). They could change this moving forward and tax anyone who works for a company that receives FUTURE fed bailout money, but doing it retroactively IS INDEED a bill of attainder.
Todd, I think you'd agree that I'm anything but a raving government conspiracist,
We can agree there are all other sorts of things I'd call you first, yes. :p
Taxation is the seizure of property. You cannot seize seize property/punish without due process.
You made a huge jump in the middle of that second sentence.
Taxation = seizure, yes.
Taxation = punishment, no.
That is a key issue in the Bill of Attainder argument. It's not a punishment, at least not in legal/constitutional terms.
Note that I've repeatedly said there are constitutional issues here, I'm not disagreeing with that. And those issues aside, there is no question this is political grandstanding at its worst. It's all coming to pass ... Congress and Obama are starting to take from the rich and give to the poor. All of that BS about "we never said 'wealth distribution' so stop accusing me of that!" during the campaign is proving false already. They want to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for the poor & middle class health care reform. They want to raise taxes on the wealthy to recover the economy. They want to raise taxes on the wealthy over and over again.
In the instant case, Congress made a huge mistake bailing out these companies, they compounded the mistake by bailing them out without strict controls, and now on top of it all they're making even more mistakes in what amounts to a financial lynching to cover their own inept tracks.
Taxation when applied to the whole populace is not punishment if those people elected their representatives, however in this case it is meant as punishment against a narrow group. Applying it only to a limited segment of the population is clearly meant as punishment and denying the taxees due process is indeed a bill of attainder.
It's no more a punishment than telling CT residents who work in NYC that they have to pay a special income tax. It happens. It's not a punishment. Is it wrong? Yes. It is unconstitutional? Depending on how they word the final law, quite possibly. Is it a bill of attainder? I don't think so. But I am, admittedly, far from an expert in that area of law ... after all, there have only been a tiny number of SCOTUS decisions on the issue.
Implicit in your description of bill of attainder and even more onerous is that the law is being applied ex post facto (an overlapping Constitutional prohibition).
Were the bonuses paid last year or this year? If paid this year, then Congress can obviously change the tax code as it applies to income earned in CY09 for filing in CY10. Ex post facto is also generally concerned with punishment which brings us right back to the same discussion.
It's like arguing about pedophilia. You want to say that a guy is bad because he was wearing a red jumpsuit while raping a 9yo boy ... and I'm saying the red jumpsuit wasn't the problem.
Gutshot John
03-20-09, 10:19
We can agree there are all other sorts of things I'd call you first, yes. :p
Sonuva... :p
You made a huge jump in the middle of that second sentence.
Taxation = seizure, yes.
Taxation = punishment, no.
Punishment or seizure it doesn't matter. You can't do either without due process.
That is a key issue in the Bill of Attainder argument. It's not a punishment, at least not in legal/constitutional terms.
I'm pretty sure that's splitting a pretty fine constitutional hair. I'd also agree that claiming it's "taxation" is their attempt to get past the Constitutional issue of a bill of attainder, but if you look at what the British did during the Revolution, the Bill of Attainders applied exactly to taxation. In this case if you don't pay your tax you are a criminal.
Note that I've repeatedly said there are constitutional issues here, I'm not disagreeing with that. And those issues aside, there is no question this is political grandstanding at its worst. It's all coming to pass ... Congress and Obama are starting to take from the rich and give to the poor. All of that BS about "we never said 'wealth distribution' so stop accusing me of that!" during the campaign is proving false already. They want to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for the poor & middle class health care reform. They want to raise taxes on the wealthy to recover the economy. They want to raise taxes on the wealthy over and over again.
Agreed.
In the instant case, Congress made a huge mistake bailing out these companies, they compounded the mistake by bailing them out without strict controls, and now on top of it all they're making even more mistakes in what amounts to a financial lynching to cover their own inept tracks.
They gave the money by enacting a statute. They're now trying to retroactively change that statute in order to seize property. The Bills of Attainder by the British Parliament applied directly to commerce/shipping and taxation.
It's no more a punishment than telling CT residents who work in NYC that they have to pay a special income tax. It happens. It's not a punishment. Is it wrong? Yes. It is unconstitutional? Depending on how they word the final law, quite possibly. Is it a bill of attainder? I don't think so. But I am, admittedly, far from an expert in that area of law ... after all, there have only been a tiny number of SCOTUS decisions on the issue.
That's a bit of an overstatement. CT residents are paying tax for the privilege of working in NYC, if they don't want to pay the tax, they don't have to work there. It would be more akin to making CT residents pay NY taxes even if they didn't work there.
Were the bonuses paid last year or this year? If paid this year, then Congress can obviously change the tax code as it applies to income earned in CY09 for filing in CY10. Ex post facto is also generally concerned with punishment which brings us right back to the same discussion.
Congress enacted a statute under which it was legal to pay the bonuses and that were already subject to extant income taxes. After the fact, they're trying to change tax law.
It's like arguing about pedophilia. You want to say that a guy is bad because he was wearing a red jumpsuit while raping a 9yo boy ... and I'm saying the red jumpsuit wasn't the problem.
I must confess you lost me here. :confused:
Punishment or seizure it doesn't matter. You can't do either without due process.
Agreed 100%. My point is that "lack of Due Process" does not automatically equal "Bill of Attainder."
Congress enacted a statute under which it was legal to pay the bonuses and that were already subject to extant income taxes. After the fact, they're trying to change tax law.
Right. They can change tax law, that doesn't make it a Bill of Attainder or ex post facto.
From what I've seen, the people calling this a Bill of Attainder are pols and TV talking heads. Whenever I've seen a serious legal/constitutional scholar quoted, he's said it's not a Bill of Attainder (unless the language of the bill actually does spell it out as a punishment rather than a tax).
Again, I think we both agree it's wrong, so debating whether or not it's wrong in terms of a specific line in the Constitution is probably anti-climactic.
Gutshot John
03-20-09, 10:53
From what I've seen, the people calling this a Bill of Attainder are pols and TV talking heads. Whenever I've seen a serious legal/constitutional scholar quoted, he's said it's not a Bill of Attainder (unless the language of the bill actually does spell it out as a punishment rather than a tax).
Though I can't find a link/source. I'm pretty sure I heard Jonathan Turley, a noted Constitutional scholar from GWU law center, say exactly that the Bill of Attainder language would be more than enough to issue a court challenge.
Admittedly he also said the SCOTUS would be the final determinant of whether it is or is not, but he was very skeptical that the law will stand unless SCOTUS disregards Article I, Section 9, Clause 3.
HowardCohodas
03-20-09, 11:33
I hope this country is still one where the rule of law is still a strong part of our DNA. There are several problems here. First, when the law is followed and the results are unjust or undesirable, then new law is the usual response by lawmakers, even when it was the law they originally created that caused the undesirable results. Lawmakers, hardly ever correct their errors be removing the errant laws they created in the first place, but are want to add new law with ignorance to the probable unintended consequences giving them another opportunity to make more law and continue the pathology.
Much of that they are doing with respect to AIG is theater. But it seems to me that doing things against the law ought to a bridge too far for law makers who are predominantly lawyers. I've been wondering whether these lawyers can be attacked through their bar association through the complaint process. I have no expectation of winning, just providing them with some pushback where they have to answer for what they do would make me feel good. Probably just a fantasy.
VooDoo6Actual
03-20-09, 11:46
Please delete Double Tap.
VooDoo6Actual
03-20-09, 11:49
[/SIZE]Never happen.
What would have been a better idea is to have AIG file their CLAWBACK lawsuit suing their Derivatives Divison Executives in charge (which continues to be UNREGULATED which is the CULPRIT) for Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Capacity which is the FRAUD of course.
Basically, at the end of the day AIG's Financial Services Division (which their Derivative Division is part of is headquartered in CONNETICUT (you guessed it Senator Chris Dodd's state) through AIG's GUARANTEED INSURANCE on the Sub Prime Mortages that they could not cover.
Essenially at the end of the day, it is like going to Vegas and betting and hedging those bets w/ markers that were uncollaterialized/unsecured with Banks all over the planet (Suisse, France, UK etc.) Common CON and simple FRAUD With ZERO accountability and regulation....
To put it politely they were letting their Alligator Jaws talk out their Canary behinds and writing checks with their mouths' that their arse's could not cash....
WE collectively have elected a bunch of BOZO's who obviously don't get it.
Pathetic in reality....
Check this out:
http://www.suntimes.com/business/1465914,w-american-international-group-030809.article
"AIG has been forced to seek more help in part because of the ongoing recession and its falling stock price, now well under $1. Among its biggest problems: It can't sell assets to pay back government loans because the credit crisis is preventing would-be buyers from getting financing to complete such deals."
Yes, I'm sure.
Transparency we can believe in....
VooDoo6Actual
03-20-09, 11:51
Please delete HAMMER
Taxation = seizure, yes.
Taxation = punishment, no.
That is a key issue in the Bill of Attainder argument. It's not a punishment, at least not in legal/constitutional terms.
Punishment or seizure it doesn't matter. You can't do either without due process.
I'm pretty sure that's splitting a pretty fine constitutional hair. I'd also agree that claiming it's "taxation" is their attempt to get past the Constitutional issue of a bill of attainder, but if you look at what the British did during the Revolution, the Bill of Attainders applied exactly to taxation. In this case if you don't pay your tax you are a criminal.
Gotta go with John on this one. It's painfully obvious to me that Congress is wielding taxation as a weapon with intent to punish AIG and those individuals who received bonuses.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.