Since when does OUTRAGE! trump Constitutionality?
Posted By Russ Emerson on March 17, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Let me get this straight. AIG has (or had) some employees with whom it has (or had) contracts, in which was stipulated there would be a bonus payment of some kind.
AIG, still solvent thanks to the US taxpayer, complies with its contractual obligations and pays out the bonuses, some of them alleged to be enormous.
Outrage ensues.
Now, I can see how some people — the ones who don’t understand the concept of “contractual obligation” — might be upset, but the hyperbole I’m seeing in the news is beyond rationality. Senator Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) suggestion that hara-kiri might be appropriate was stupid beyond belief.
But more to the point, the remedies some are proposing strike me as being plainly and patently unconstitutional.
The response from Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) struck me as most egregious. From CNN:
“My colleagues and I are sending a letter to [AIG CEO Edward] Liddy informing him that he can go right ahead and tell the employees that are scheduled to get bonuses that they should voluntarily return them,” Sen. Charles Schumer said on the Senate floor. “Because if they don’t, we plan to tax virtually all of [the money] … so it is returned to its rightful owners, the taxpayers.”
If Chuckie were so concerned about the taxpayers, he’d have opposed all of the recent spending. He’s not really concerned about the taxpayers — he’s concerned about his image. He doesn’t want to be known as one of the passel of legislators who let this one get past them.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but legislation written now to tax bonuses already paid sounds a lot like an ex post facto law to me.
Legislation aimed specifically at the AIG employees who received bonuses sounds a lot to me like a bill of attainder.
What the Constitution has to say about both is quite plain, and (to this non-lawyer) quite beyond debate. Article I, Section 9 says, in part:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Not, of course that that will stop The One and all his congressional Obam-automotons from enacting such legislation. Because of the outrage, you see.
Of course, I’m not a lawyer. I can only read the pretty plain English in which our Constitution was written. So perhaps I should turn to the thoughts of one of the men who actually wrote the Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist Number 44:
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.
I’d say the intent is pretty clear.
If politicians are so worked up about the results of the bailout laws they’ve passed, perhaps it would behoove them to actually read the bills they propose and vote on before passing them. Making laws plainly contrary to the black-letter words of the Constitution is a dangerous thing to do.
Interesting, via Instapundit: Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections in the ‘Dodd Amendment’ Rules
Constitutionally Questionable
Remember those bonuses paid to AIG employees that people are raising a fuss over cause the company received a huge bailout from the government, the House wrote a bill addressing them. And, naturally, it passed.
Acting with lightning speed, the Democrat…