BUSHED

MalibuGuru · Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300

Dan, it is called ex-post-facto. In effect our founding fathers did not want legislators legislating after the fact. They were smarter than our current crop of morons who think the American people haven't read the constitution. It is their fault they didn't read the legislation they signed.

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

DanWeiss · Joined: 24 Jun 2008 Posts: 2296 Location: Connecticut, USA

Mike, c'mon. It's one thing to take a certain position. Nobody -at least most- don't take issue with that even if they disagree vehemently. It's quite another to defend a position regarding a consitutional quesiton by suggesting you know better than someone who studies the law for a living. To be clear, I do not claim that my profession and practice concentration gives me much of a leg up on your insight. You are a very bright guy and quite able to analyze material.

If the IRS determines to pursue a particular tax rate on certain transactions that occurred in a tax year that preceded the signing date of the enabling legislation I believe that may be unenforceable. If the IRS decides to go after the bonuses paid after the beginning of the tax year in which the law is passed then those taxes are due without argument.

In any event, this is not a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is a piece of legislation declaring a person or group of people guilty of a crime and punishing them without the benefit of a trial. Nothing in this proposed legislation declares the receipt or payment of a bonus a crime.

The controlling case is Nixon vs. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) that established a three-prong test for determining whether a piece of legislation went afoul of the prohibition against bills of attainder. First, does that law impose a penalty traditionally held to violate Article I Clause 3; second, whether the law, viewed functionally in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed, could rationally be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes; and 3) whether the law had no legislative record evincing a congressional intent to punish.

Here, first, taxation is not considered by the court to be one of those penalties. Second, the target of the legislation is non-punitive because the clear intent of the legislation is to recover public money and to discourage such behavior in the future. It is important to note that the recipients of these bonuses are not asked to surrender all benefit. Third, and finally, the legislative record is dominated by clear expressions of outrage regarding AIG's determination to use gov't funds to pay bonuses rather than the employees unmitigated gall to accept these bonuses.

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

Hey, what happened to isobars' shaka in the last two posts?

Dan, as civil and balanced as you always are with isobars, I think that he's giving you a signal that he really doesn't wish you the best in his responses.