House Bill to punish bonuses is nothing more than fake outrage!

[demo dutch]

It will never fly because it's unconstitutional to enact a law after the fact. - Constitutional Law 101
Consitutional scholars pretty much agree

What a fucking dog and pony show!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. It's not a criminal law, so it's not ex post facto.

It's a tax on 2009 earnings. Perfectly constitutional.

If people are against this bill, I don't want to hear them whining about AIG bonuses.

[demo dutch]

2. I'm all for it, but it's unconsitutional. They should have thought of it to begin with. Most

constitional scholars agree

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. You're all for something you think is unconstitutional? Huh.

"Most constitutional scholars agree."

Well the supreme court didn't back when they ruled in favor of the constitutionality of retroactive taxes.

And I'm pretty sure they count as constitutional scholars. At least to a certain degree.

[redstate_democrat]

4. In order to be unconstitutional, ex post facto laws have to "punish"

and taxes aren't considered a "punishment", unless you're Grover Norquist.

[TexasObserver]

5. you're right

[denem]

6. A 90% tax rate on the books that half the GOP voted for

is nothing to sneeze at. The precedent opens some delicious political opportunities down the track.

[RepublicanElephant]

7. somebody needs to tell chris matthews about ex post facto.

he thinks he's really onto something.
:eyes:

he should do his own research before parroting gop talking points.