Comments on: Bill of Attainder http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/ Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:59:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Michael Van Cise http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-283186 Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:30:22 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-283186 I certainly defer to whatever professor Tribe has to say on the topic, but as I understand things, the Constitution merely prohibits voiding contracts. (Bills of Attainder actually deal with criminal acts - not civil/financial matters) The contract clause is closer to what's going on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause. But, taxing someone on their earnings in no way interferes with the contract itself, so I would argue that what Congress did was entirely constitutional. I certainly defer to whatever professor Tribe has to say on the topic, but as I understand things, the Constitution merely prohibits voiding contracts. (Bills of Attainder actually deal with criminal acts - not civil/financial matters) The contract clause is closer to what’s going on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause. But, taxing someone on their earnings in no way interferes with the contract itself, so I would argue that what Congress did was entirely constitutional.

]]> by: Tom in TX http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-283001 Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:47:12 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-283001 And Laurence Tribe is having second thoughts: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/law-professor-who-advised-obama-says-house-aig-bill-may-be-unconstitutional/ And Laurence Tribe is having second thoughts:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/law-professor-who-advised-obama-says-house-aig-bill-may-be-unconstitutional/

]]> by: Tom in TX http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-282645 Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:57:58 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-282645 The Wall Street Journal agrees: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776465612908965.html#mod=djemEditorialPage The Wall Street Journal agrees:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776465612908965.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

]]> by: SB http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-281200 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:20:40 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-281200 Unrelated: http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/03/why_we_should_track_and_measure_everything.php You are mentioned in this article. Unrelated:
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/03/why_we_should_track_and_measure_everything.php

You are mentioned in this article.

]]> by: Joe http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-281161 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:22:37 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-281161 Ed's got the basic idea right but the dates wrong. The Constitution's been ignored for much longer than that. 90 years ago people realized that it would take a Constitutional Amendment to ban one intoxicant but just a few years later decided that one was no longer necessary to ban others. Ed’s got the basic idea right but the dates wrong. The Constitution’s been ignored for much longer than that. 90 years ago people realized that it would take a Constitutional Amendment to ban one intoxicant but just a few years later decided that one was no longer necessary to ban others.

]]> by: bennetta http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-281032 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:14:00 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-281032 It's legal. The government does this sort of thing all the time with income taxes. For example, in 2008, many of us received "stimulus" checks. Technically, this was a reduction of the amount the government was to collect from our paychecks the year before. This can go either way. Just as the government can refund us part of the money we owed in 2007 in 2008, they can penalize us in 2009 on our 2009 and 2008 taxes, as is the case here. It’s legal. The government does this sort of thing all the time with income taxes. For example, in 2008, many of us received “stimulus” checks. Technically, this was a reduction of the amount the government was to collect from our paychecks the year before. This can go either way. Just as the government can refund us part of the money we owed in 2007 in 2008, they can penalize us in 2009 on our 2009 and 2008 taxes, as is the case here.

]]> by: Tom in TX http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-280997 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:16:50 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-280997 It is also an ex post facto law. And an interference with contracts. The comments from Laurence Tribe are interesting, and he is a well-known legal scholar. But I think his comments illustrate one of the big problems we have in the USA. The lawyer looks at the Constitution and says, How can I get around this? Very few people think of the Constitution as being something that contains wisdom and guidance. There are some very good reasons that a government should not be allowed to pass a law punishing a person without due process (bill of attainder), or making an act a crime after the fact (ex post facto), or interfering with contracts between individuals. Of course they start by aiming the law at people for whom we don't have a lot of sympathy. When they come after you, the precedent will have already been set. It is also an ex post facto law. And an interference with contracts.

The comments from Laurence Tribe are interesting, and he is a well-known legal scholar. But I think his comments illustrate one of the big problems we have in the USA. The lawyer looks at the Constitution and says, How can I get around this? Very few people think of the Constitution as being something that contains wisdom and guidance.

There are some very good reasons that a government should not be allowed to pass a law punishing a person without due process (bill of attainder), or making an act a crime after the fact (ex post facto), or interfering with contracts between individuals.

Of course they start by aiming the law at people for whom we don’t have a lot of sympathy. When they come after you, the precedent will have already been set.

]]> by: peter http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-280956 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:04:52 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-280956 it's not a bill of attainder; the power to tax is the power to destroy. (altho there may be some other Constitutional provision re taxes that prevents this ) it’s not a bill of attainder; the power to tax is the power to destroy. (altho there may be some other Constitutional provision re taxes that prevents this )

]]> by: David Lynch http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-280940 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:54:49 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-280940 There's a nice bit of <a href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/laurence_tribe_is_taxing_aig_legal.php" rel="nofollow">analysis by Laurence Tribe</a>, a law professor. There’s a nice bit of analysis by Laurence Tribe, a law professor.

]]> by: tfl: The Flatiron Life » Blog Archive » Bill of Attainder http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-280937 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:39:01 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/03/19/bill-of-attainder/#comment-280937 [...] I was going to write this exact post, but Dr. Seth Roberts beat me to it. [...] […] I was going to write this exact post, but Dr. Seth Roberts beat me to it. […]

]]>