Sunday, March 22, 2009


Has anyone ever read Article I, Section 9, clause 3 of The Constitution of the United States of America?

It's about the powers of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

It says: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

A "Bill of Attainder" is a legislative act declaring that a person is guilty of a crime and setting punishment without the benefit of a formal trial. The Constitution forbids the federal government from passing bills of attainder.

"Ex Post Facto" is from the Latin: after the fact. Legislation is called ex post facto if the law attempts to extend backwards in time and punish acts committed before the date of the law's approval. Such laws are constitutionally prohibited in most modern democracies. For example, the USA Constitution prohibits "any ex post facto law".

Can you say, "Let's go back and tax the bonuses to AIG executives at 90%"


BetteJo said...

As much as I hated tax payer money going for those bonuses - I really hated the idea of the government stepping in and spanking them for it!

Tapline said...

Joe, What is the purpose of the Supreme Court. They certainly stepped in fast enough when they thought our ex-president was overstepping his bounds as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and dictated New requirements that needed to be met as it related to the subject being questioned......There are a multitude of things happening around the country that are at best qustionable as it relates to being Constitutional. The Thomas More center, I believe, has a suit currently pending before the courts. Read the Post written by Mustang on Social Sense It is outstanding. To my knowledge MSM is not covering this aspect of The Bailout of AIG...... stay well

sue said...

Joe - I'll be checking out your blog. I like your rules.

I just did a post on Jaws.

shoprat said...

We have a president who has referred to the Constitution as a flawed document. It will receive no respect.

Mark said...

Joe, with the limited information we have currently, we have no way of knowing whether the bonuses awarded to the employees of AIG are deserved or not.

It just could be that the recipients of said bonuses earned them according to their respective contracts.

That said, I suspected the legislation passed by the legislature was unconstitutional, but I didn't bother to do the research.

But that is only part of the illegality. Obama shamelessly shifted the blame for his own mistake onto the shoulders of the AIG executives that received bonuses.

But the executives are not the guilty parties here. The guilty ones are the ones who inserted the language into the omnibus bill which gave permission for AIG to award the bonuses in the first place, Namely, Sen. Christopher Dodd, who first denied he had anything to do with it, then, when trapped, blamed it on Obama.

The fact of the matter is, the AIG bail out bill didn't specify any guidelines for how the funds were to be spent, so it was perfectly legal for AIG to spend them any way they saw fit.

Just because AIG spent the money unwisely, it isn't AIG's fault. That just shows poor management of money. It was Obama's fault.

Now, because of Obama's shameless shifting of the blame to innocent AIG workers, some of them are in serious danger from the mobs of angry protesters who have gathered in front of AIG executives homes in Connecticut.

If this turns bloody, as it might, the blood will be on Obama's hands.

Will impeachment come in time to prevent a bloody prolonged revolt?

It's looking more and more inevitable.

Joe said...

BetteJo: Thanks for the visit. I like the "spanking them for it" phrase.

Tapline: As usual, you are right on. And MSM is a joke.

Sue: I really appreciate your checking out my blog. Come back often.

shoprat: 10-4!

Mark: You are right. The question of whether or not the bonuses were "deserved," though, is not one the government should be deciding. BTW: Dodd, Ried, Pelosi, Waters, Frank and a few others should be talking to us from behind bars.

Mark said...

So should Obama.