Berzerker
Deity
With the AIG bailout we're hearing outrage over bonuses paid to AIG people and calls for taxing those bonuses, even a %100 tax has been proposed by members of Congress.
The Constitution prohibits ex post facto legislation for both Congress and the states, ex post facto means retroactive, ie no retroactive legislation. Congress cant pass a law today and apply it to what happened yesterday. Bills of Attainder may apply here as well...why, yes, it does...
The SCOTUS has ruled in the past that this limit on Congress only applies to criminal law, not all legislation which would include tax laws. The Constitution does not make that distinction, the SCOTUS invented it. When Bill Clinton came into office, the Congress and he passed a retroactive tax increase, not only to the beginning of his administration, but they went back to Jan 1 of the previous Bush administration.
The Framers were not in the habit of explaining limits placed on Congress, at least not within the Constitution itself. But when they did limit the states, they usually clued us in on why - here's why...
Section 10, Clause 1 (Contracts Clause): No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
A retroactive tax increase impairs contractual obligations, and Congress not only knows this, they've admitted as much by giving people hit by the tax more time to pay it off like they did in '93. But this is even worse than the Clinton tax, that at least was applied to "everyone" whereas this is a tax on a specific group of people - people by name. Funny, it was Congress who handed over all this money without proper restrictions on its use and now Congress is complaining? They want people at AIG to resign? Lead the way you a-holes!
The Constitution prohibits ex post facto legislation for both Congress and the states, ex post facto means retroactive, ie no retroactive legislation. Congress cant pass a law today and apply it to what happened yesterday. Bills of Attainder may apply here as well...why, yes, it does...
The SCOTUS has ruled in the past that this limit on Congress only applies to criminal law, not all legislation which would include tax laws. The Constitution does not make that distinction, the SCOTUS invented it. When Bill Clinton came into office, the Congress and he passed a retroactive tax increase, not only to the beginning of his administration, but they went back to Jan 1 of the previous Bush administration.
The Framers were not in the habit of explaining limits placed on Congress, at least not within the Constitution itself. But when they did limit the states, they usually clued us in on why - here's why...
Section 10, Clause 1 (Contracts Clause): No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
A retroactive tax increase impairs contractual obligations, and Congress not only knows this, they've admitted as much by giving people hit by the tax more time to pay it off like they did in '93. But this is even worse than the Clinton tax, that at least was applied to "everyone" whereas this is a tax on a specific group of people - people by name. Funny, it was Congress who handed over all this money without proper restrictions on its use and now Congress is complaining? They want people at AIG to resign? Lead the way you a-holes!
Are they corporations receiving taxpayer money?
We should have let AIG fail, and go into default. Then things like back pay would be greatly reduced.
