Further Proof Needed?

Does anyone really need further proof that the United States Congress has no intention of honoring their "oath or affirmation" to uphold the Constitution of the United States - the Law of the Land? Since our lawmakers and leaders do not respect that great document, why should any other body, political or individual?

By Jeremy Pelofsky and Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Moving with unusual speed, the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a bill to tax bonuses to employees at companies getting federal bailout money and recoup most of the $165 million paid to American International Group Inc executives.

[. . .]

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.

The tax would apply to executives with incomes over $250,000 who worked for companies that received at least $5 billion in federal aid. That would include others getting help, such as mortgage financing company Fannie Mae.

Don't misunderstand - I am livid that this was allowed to happen (Thank You, Chris Dodd).

BUT: There are two problems with this.

The first would be Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution, which clearly states (as in, in NO uncertain terms):

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

"Bill of Attainder" is a bill that targets a specific person or group of people (i.e., "executives with incomes over $250,000 who worked for companies that received at least $5 billion in federal aid").

The second would be violation of Article I, Section 10, the "Contracts Clause," regarding creation of a "Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." (Granted, this specifically is a power denied the States while Bill of Attainder pertains to the US Congress, but we are treading dangerous ground here with precedent-setting, since those bonuses were contractual agreements signed before this newest sack of manure dressed in top hat and tails came walking out of Washington).

The fact that these bonuses were promised in the first place, in a manner flying in the face that the rest of us (those of us footing the bail-out bills) know and understand as "bonuses," is truly despicable. If those executives are not ashamed, they should be. I had read somewhere that some had promised to return at least half (if not more) of the money in the first place. How many would have returned most or all of the bonuses had reasonable appeal been made, rather than jumping directly to illegal legislation?

Now that Congress has done this, these executives will not only keep their bonuses, they will get MORE money (courtesy of the Joe and Jane Taxpayer) when these cases are litigated.

Thanks for nothing, Congress.