Article I of the Constitution states:
Notice the 3rd clause, in red. "Attainder," for constitutional purposes, is defined thusly:The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
"Ex post facto" is defined thusly:Attainder
attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: AHD
In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.
As my friend wrote it up:Ex post facto
ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD
In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
"1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."
Now, I don't like these AIG bonuses any more than I like the AIG bailout. I think they both stink. I think the former stinks because the government has overstepped its constitutional bounds. I think the latter stinks because they are demonstrably undeserved bonuses. But Congress first sought (through Senator Chris Dodd's incompetence) to forbid the AIG bonuses in an AIG rescue bill which government had no business enacting; after which the administration reminded him that those are contractual obligations, and they need to be put back in; and then both tried to distance themselves from their own fecklessness when it became apparent to the public that these propeller heads are incompetent to sit in the seats of power.Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States may very well be on the chopping block. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses given out to AIG employees.
Now, the bonuses are not at issue here. Whether they are right or wrong, good or bad is immaterial to what is really going on.
The House passed a bill that is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. “No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed.” You can pick either one of those and it would cover this 90% bonus tax.
First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (i.e. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional.
Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and President Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law.
Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional.
If this bill becomes law and is not struck down by the Supreme Court, then it sets a precedent that Congress can legislate retroactive laws and put through Bills of Attainder. For example, if Congress decided that they wanted to raise the income tax rate for 2007 to 50% and collect back taxes from everyone, they can point to this piece of legislation and say that they now have the power to do so and there will be nothing we can do to stop it.
I recommend that you send emails or make phone calls to your Senators and ask them to vote “nay” on this bill and to restore the integrity of the Constitution of the United States.
But whether or not those bonuses are deserved, they are legal, and what the house has just voted for itself is the right to punish by means of a 90% federal (plus 10% local) confiscatory tax rate anybody who earns a bonus. This government truly does not understand the concept of incentive, and they are, and will continue to crush our economy into oblivion.
Exactly!! I was thinking the same thing...I have emailed them, wrote to them, called them...and they could care less. I think every one of them should be fired , with no retirement, no health care and let them live like we have to...and get a real job. They should not be allowed to be in office no more than a 2 year term at the most and then send them back to scrape with the rest of us. Believe it or not, we are not near as stupid as they think we are. 
