Bonuses and Bills of Attainder

File under “fools go.”  The House of Representatives, responding to the AIG bonus issue with all the deliberation and finesse of a dancer in a mosh pit, has slapped a 90% tax on the greedy AIG financiers.  So, having shoveled hundreds of millions to AIG, we are now about the business of taxing some of it back. 

Okay.  But there may be a little problem, which is the Constitution of the United States.  Specifically Article 1, Section 9,

Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

A bill of attainder is a law that singles out a specific person or group of persons for punishment without a trial.  This is the kind of thing wicked English Kings and Parliaments did, along with drawing and quartering.  One of the problems with due process is that the guys you want to see drawn and quartered don’t always get drawn and quartered, so why not just pass a law that declares them guilty and proscribes the punishment?  Well, according to the clause above, Congress can’t do that. 

The House bill looks a lot like a bill of attainder to me.  It singles out a very specific group of people, and draws and quarters with the tax power.  I don’t know how the courts will come down, but it seems certain that the courts will get involved.  That will mean a lot of people fiddling while money burns.

This is unserious government.  If we are going to use public power and wealth to try to correct economic dysfunction, maybe we need the private sector to cooperate.  Does it encourage such cooperation to go into a tizzy and slap the pee wee of everyone who participates in the process?  Maybe not. 

But the current Congress seems to regard the Constitution as a set of suggestions.  I suggest that we should take that seriously. 

Comments

[A.I.]

I doubt any but the most insipid of congress members see this as anything more than an expression of outrage--and a way to create a political trap that forced the likes of Eric Cantor to vote for a massive tax increase. Now that's entertainment!

[KB]

It is an expression of outrage. If it passes, it is also a violation of the Constitution.