Bills of attainder

A bill of attainder is defined as: a legislative act that singles out a single individual or group for punishment without a trial. Another definition is: a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. So, anytime Congress passes a law for any reason that would negatively impact a specific individual or group (basically punish them for something) without a trial, they have enacted a bill of attainder. Can they do that? Well, Article I, Section 9 (the section limiting the powers of Congress) of the United States Constitution states unequivocally, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." So, no, they can't do this. Ever. If they did, it would be a clear violation of the constitution. So, that brings me to a story I read on FoxNews.com today. It explained that Congress is looking at all the possibilities in dealing with the AIG situation, specifically recouping taxpayer dollars for bonuses paid out by the company. The fact that Congress hasn't even considered the possibility that they are simply wrong to be giving money to companies in the first place and would therefore have avoided this obvious conflict of interest doesn't seem to bother them at all. In fact, the story states: "Ten House Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday to tax all bonuses above $100,000 at 100 percent to recoup all the "outrageous" AIG bonuses. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that recouping a "substantial portion" through taxation is one of several viable possibilities. And Rep. Charlie Rangel, the Democratic chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, authored a resolution that would place a 90 percent income tax on bonuses for employees with family incomes above $250,000 for firms, like AIG, that received at least $5 billion in bailout money." Hmm... so, people who have legally binding contracts with AIG (who would have gotten nothing if the company had failed) are now being told that simply because the company doesn't know how to do business (which we should have all known already anyway) that they will now be singled out for excessive taxation. Um... that's a bill of attainder folks, pure and simple. If either of these two pieces of legislation were to pass and be signed into law, these people would be within their rights to sue (and probably would). If they did sue, it could be that they'd get even more money than the 165 million from the government, assuming they'd win, which they should. Not to mention the amount of money the Justice Department would have to spend to defend the government in the case. This is simply a disaster and PR nightmare for Congress that would most likely be decided just in time for the upcoming elections. This kind of thinking is derived from the thought that somehow the rich deserve to be taxed higher, just because they are rich. I'm not going to argue for or against that, I'm just saying that taxing this specific group of people is only being considered because of the amount of money involved. If Congress had proposed a bill of attainder for virtually any other group, the entire country would be up in arms over them overstepping their power and authority. Where's the outrage? Simple. We don't care because we think somehow they deserve it. Well, sorry to say that they don't deserve it. Congress, Democrat Christopher Dodd, specifically placed into the legislation a loophole that allowed AIG and other companies to do this. Even if they hadn't, are we as a people really ready to say that contracts are no longer valid and can be voided simply because Congress doesn't like the outcome? I mean, where is the logical conclusion to that? Oh right, a complete loss of constitutional rights to property and probably several other things I can't think of right now. This legislation should not be allowed and the President shouldn't sign it even if it passes. It is repugnant and a stain on the constitution if it were to pass. Why can't Congress figure out that the only reason there is controversy here is because of them. They are the ones who decided to bail out AIG. They are the ones who decided not to require cancellation of contracts (which would be legal under bankruptcy proceedings), and they are the ones who seem to have a complete lack of understanding of our financial system. It is them. Oh, by the way, they (whether Republican or Democrat) caused the housing bubble that resulted in the banking and credit crisis that resulted in AIG's failure. We have our own government's meddling to thank for our problems and for this scandal. They just don't see it.