The House, responding quickly to public outrage over the bonuses after the giant insurer received up to $180 billion in U.S. aid, voted 328-93 to approve a 90 percent tax on bonuses for certain executives at companies getting government aid. -- SourceI wish I could cite the bill number, but the story didn't say. And a search of the word "bonus" in OpenCongress pulls six bills purporting to amend the tax code. AIG gets fed money and uses it to pay big bonuses. The people get pissed off. But, for some reason the people are not pissed at the fed for allowing it in the first place. And those same people cannot see the individual rotting at the root structure of the tree of liberty. Why? No one can see the tree for the forest of a congress that needs to get reelected?
Why am I pissed off? Why am I afraid that Mr. Obama and the Democrat Congress are in collusion to strip my country of the things that make us unique in the world? Why do I fear Eurofication? Please, Read on and Please Comment.
I am afraid because Mr. Obama has betrayed the special trust and confidence that should be held between the US Military & Vets and thier Commander-in-Chief. As mentioned in the previous blog post "Mr. Obama is Not My President" he is openly supportive of abrogating the US Governments moral responsibility to care for and pay for the care of her veterans with service connected disabilities.
I am afraid because HR45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 will impose licensing of your second amendment rights from sea to shining sea. Once that is done, what will be licensed next? Your religion? Maybe the right to peaceably assemble? Perhaps the Free Press. Pravda anyone?
I am afraid because a punishment tax is about as King George III as you can get. When the majority of the House is so afraid of voter backlash that they immediately rush to impose a tax.... So much for moral courage. Apparently the fact that such an action is unconstitutional is merely another unique Americanism to be swept away.
Don't take my word for it. Instead read what Techlaw says.
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:
- Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
- Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
- U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
- Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).
See also, SBC v. FCC.
I am afraid because suddenly, after the election of course, the congress wishes to un-term-limit the office of the president. Amazingly, according to history, the last un-term-limited President was famous for rounding up American citizens of Asian decent and placing them in interment camps guarded by the US Army on American soil. So, it can't happen here right? Sure thing President-for-Life (fill in your blank).
How many other dangers are lurking in the Congressional minefield that we don't know about?
hrj5 Obama congress hr45 taxation bill of attainder unconstitutional Conspiracy+theories Conspiracy+theory