My problem with the AIG tax is that it is emotional, and not Constitutional

[Mike 03]

It is a tax targeted against a "group" of people.

I donate money to the ACLU and Lambda to prevent exactly this kind of thing.

Should it be okay for those states that detest Gay Marriage to tax their marriage expenses ninety percent when they tax straight people nothing for our expenses?

This opens a can of worms, doesn't it?

Do you want particular groups taxed?

[geckosfeet]

1. I don't know why we can't fire the lot of them. Buy out their contracts

and send them packing.

[L0oniX]

2. That 90% tax will never make it though the senate and they all know it.

It's just a symbolic thing.

[jeff30997]

3. "Do you want particular groups taxed?"

In fact yes I do.All organized Religions or cults that are currently tax free.

[rcrush]

19. Wont happen

Not when our country is run by those cults.

[elleng]

4. Probably not written targetting 'groups,'

but anyone who takes particular business/financial actions. VERY different from 'invidious discrimination' against women, blacks, lgbt, etc.

But these complaints may very well be why Prez. O is not thrilled with the idea.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. please explain which article/amendment of the Constitution has been violated

Group and even individual-specific tax breaks are written into law all the time, helping out those individuals and corporations that make big campaign donations. I just don't see how this is unconstitutional...

[customerserviceguy]

9. I had the same problem

until I read this:

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_06_4_manweller.pdf

Yes, it's about reparations, but the same arguments could be used on any tax that reaches retroactively into the pockets of people.

[Critters2]

22. From the moment it was first discussed, it sounded like ex post facto to me.

You can't pass a law after an act to make that act illegal in hopes of catching people you know have already committed the act.
Some have argued it a bill of attainder, too, though that seems less certain to me.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. This is just a change in tax code, not criminal law, no? n/t

[backscatter712]

30. Article I, Section 9.

The AIG tax bill could be considered both an ex-post-facto law and a bill of attainder.

It's retroactive taxation, targeted at a very specific group of people, for performing acts that were legal, though unethical, at the time.

And the tax could be considered to be a sort of fine, imposed by Congress without a benefit of trial, making it possible that this bill could be a bill of attainder.

I agree with the OP - this is a bill of questionable constitutionality (I'm sure a few people will argue against me on this, but I think it does tread on dangerous ground.)

And it's definitely a bill that came from pure emotion. CONGRESS ANGRY!!! CONGRESS SMASH!!!

I would prefer that Congress worked to rein in the behavior that AIG and other Wall-Streeters have been engaging in through smarter means - reregulation. Reinstate Glass Steagall, impose restrictions on executive compensation, require bonus awards to be dependent on the profitability of the company, tighten down the ethics, that sort of thing. Restrict short-selling type behavior, and damned well impose some conflict-of-interest rules.

[dkf]

37. Actually it targets anyone who took the TARP funds, which means

it isn't aimed as specifically as you may think.

[BlooInBloo]

6. And the pure, unmitigated making shit up by DUers just won't stop.

We're a stupid fucking country.

[customerserviceguy]

7. I think it comes down to

Is a tax a punishment? Before you answer too quickly, reflect on the fact that the Rethugs consider any tax to be a punishment, and you risk giving them the point.

Punishments for past behavior are unconstitutional, but prohibitions on future behavior are usually OK, as long as you've established that it's regulatory, and not meant to confiscate the property of a particular group.

Congress could pass a law (before we start handing more money out) that gives them the power to regulate the compensation paid to individuals in firms that suck up to the government trough. We should have had the brains to put this into law in President Obama's first week in office.

[AwareOne]

8. You are correct, this is a vindictive ex post facto law

that makes the Democrats look like knee jerk reactionaries and thus, fools. It stinks, it takes the attention off of the fact that years of deregulation are the cause of this mess, not AIG who happened to be the last corporation standing in a game of musical chairs. Capitalism on the brink, I love it.

[mckara]

12. Your Ex Post Facto Argument is BS

Do some research!

[Critters2]

23. Enlighten us.

It sounds like ex post facto to me, but I'm not a constitutional scholar.

[mckara]

25. OK

A large "exception" to the ex post facto prohibition can be found in administrative law, as federal agencies may apply their rules retroactively if Congress has authorized them to do so. Retroactive application is disfavored by the courts for a number of reasons, but Congress may grant agencies this authority through express statutory provision. Furthermore, when an agency engages in adjudication, it may apply its own policy goals and interpretation of statutes retroactively, even if it has not formally promulgated a rule on a subject.

[Critters2]

26. Well, maybe they do this, but I don't think the Founders would approve.

Sounds like ex post facto to me.

[depakid]

27. Sounding "ex post facto" to you- and the reality of the court's interpretations are 2 different

things.

Same with http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&navby=volpage&court=us&vol=433&page=470">"bills of attainder."

Or the contract clause.

[mckara]

10. Aren't There Precedents for Retroactive Tax Increases?

If retroactive tax cuts are fine (2001), why aren't tax increases?

[depakid]

11. Legal scholars find ithe notion quite constitutional

provided that it's written properly.

So maybe we can dispense with this syupid meme.

[AwareOne]

15. How syupid of me me

still, It will never fly in the senate if there is any rule of law left in this crumbling nation.

[depakid]

16. Rule of law?

That would be recouping unjust enrichment (technically, that would be equity, but who's quibbling).

[Critters2]

24. Yeah! You're syupid!!

Apparently I am, too. :rofl:

Good thing it was poinyed out! That'll yeach us!

[HillbillyBob]

13. I think you are correct, it is punishment

Those who should be punished are the people who caused the AIG failure, with firing their asses.
The SEC should be fired, every one of them.
Mr Markoupoulos told them in 1999 that Madoff was running a scam and they did nothing.
Phil Gramm and his legislature cronies goaded by campaign bribes from UBS (and a cherry job after his term in congress) destroyed all oversight with their 'modernization act' legislative malpractice anyone?
Killing the Glass Steagall laws.
We should not be bailing out these companies at all.
This too big to fail is bullshit, what happened to antitrust laws?
Oh yea the raygun democrats and all the subprime bs and no regulation or oversight, starting with S & L failures, letting that godam raygun kill unions.
America, freedom and decency have been crapped on for 30 years. Some of us have hit the I m made as hell wall and are just really really fed up.

In short letting the facist Rpigs get over. period. I have watched this mess unfold (I was an air traffic controller) since that time.
I have had a hard time believing Amerikans can be so f ing stupid and gullible.
When I spoke up about it I was told I was a sore loser.
Well I guess we get what we deserve.
When I spoke up about ( * ) taking us to an unlawful war on Iraq, I was called unpatriotic.
I complained about the theft of the 2000 election after witnessing ballots put into shredders by the box full before they were even counted the first time I was put on the No Fly list.

Now we react to AIG like its the first break with the Constitution, our so called leaders have been anti American, anti Labor, anti freedom in letting the facshits get over for all these years.
Yea I am angry, and not likely to 'get over it' for a long time.
I hate what this country has become and it ain't getting any better.
I had a lot of hope that Mr Obama would some how be able to appeal to our better natures and make changes. As far as I can see its the same on retreads from past maladministrations.
When we wake the hell up and go back to being Real Freedom Loving Democracy I might, maybe get over it until then I ll sit up in our house in the woods and be incredulous. Every time I have done what I felt was my duty to help I got fired, kicked in the teeth , arrested, spied on, my home ransacked.
I come from a long line of Patriots that our country and our fellow citizens were more important than than immediate satisfaction of personal gain.

[burythehatchet]

14. You know it was passed by a Democratic congress right? You sure you want t go there?

There are consequences. Think twice before you question.

[trayfoot]

17. This "idiotic tax"

is BOTH expost facto and a bill of attainder! It was a STUPID response to the problem! I am so disgusted with Congress that I could CRAP! They are such assholes - both parties - only there to guarantee their next election!

[provis99]

18. It is not in the slightest ex post facto or a bill of attainder

It's revenue law and it's perfectly legal. Where do people get this uninformed shit? Straight from the Washington Times?

[BlooInBloo]

20. The problem with talking to know-nothing people is that they don't actually know anything.

:rofl:

[backscatter712]

31. The argument centers on intent.

The bill imposes a 91% tax - rather high, and the lawyers may argue that the tax is intended to be confiscatory and punitive.

If I remember the case law right, courts have ruled that bills like this one are unconstitutional, being a bill of attainder or an ex-post-facto law, if their intent is punitive.

So the question is whether a legitimate legislative purpose is served. No, the courts don't consider punishing people for acting like assholes to be a "legitimate legislative purpose". If the law is ruled to be punitive in intent, it will be struck down.

[BlooInBloo]

32. BWAHAHAHAAAA!!!!

Like that unconstitutional cigarette tax, right?

:rofl:

[backscatter712]

33. The cigarette tax actually has a legitimate purpose.

The purpose in that case is to provide disincentives to smoking - a well known health hazard; and raise money for SCHIP - perfectly valid reasons.

The lawyers for those AIG assclowns will argue that the tax law has no legitimate purpose other than to retroactively punish their clients for accepting bonuses that were legal when they were paid out. And they just might win that argument.

I'm not saying those AIG scammers shouldn't be raked over the coals. I'm saying we should use smarter tactics and deal with them right.

And I still haven't heard anyone argue that Congress wasn't acting out of pure emotion and going CONGRESS SMASH!!!

[BlooInBloo]

34. (facepalm)

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/03/constitution-did-not-enact-mr-howard.html


EDIT: Added link for the intellect-challenged.

[sam sarrha]

21. THE BONUSES are stealing from the share holders

[UTUSN]

29. Tru-dat: Unconstitutional. That is all. n/t

[backscatter712]

35. ROAR!!! CONGRESS ANGRY!!! CONGRESS SMASH!!!

Even setting aside the arguments as to whether the AIG bonus tax bill is an ex post facto law or bill of attainder, it's still a hastily and recklessly written bill made as a direct response to populist anger.

While it feels good, it's not a good way to run a country.

This law targets a particular group of assclowns at AIG, while countless other assclowns on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms are getting away with the same thing. This law does nothing for that.

It is a reactionary response to a series of unethical acts, but it doesn't do much to prevent the same behavior going forward. They're going to rip the taxpayers off again, but they'll use some other loophole next time.

Our Congresscritters need to stop turning green and tearing down the Capitol, and get to work on some strong regulation that will put an end to Wall Street thievery.

[Fire1]

36. THAT group? YES!!