What Part of “No Ex Post facto Law” don’t Your Hypocrites Understand?
March 19, 2009 – 5:29 pmCongress wants to tax AIG bonus recipients’ bonuses at 90%. Aside from the hypocrisy involved in having those who are ruining America, the same ones who crafted the bailout bill that they didn’t read, the same ones who are bankrupting our children with yet more bailouts, et cetera, criticizing AIG executives for ruining a private company (that they bought 80% of with our money), there is one other little matter. That little matter is a document as unread as the Porkulus bill’s particulars: The Constitution. That document, which declares itself to be, “The supreme law of the land,” that each Member of Congress swears an oath, registered in Heaven, to uphold and defend, bars ex post facto laws. Such laws – punishing afterward what came beforehand – are the instruments of tyranny. You’d think that the lawyers serving on capitol Hill would know that….
4 Responses to “What Part of “No Ex Post facto Law” don’t Your Hypocrites Understand?”
Hi! Not to disagree entirely, as I think the AIG Bonus scandal is a big distraction, but I recall Mark Levin saying that “Ex Post Facto” was not in play because this was not a criminal matter:
Ex post facto is a Latin term meaning “after the fact.” Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from passing an ex post facto law, which is one that makes an action a crime even though it was not a crime when it was committed, or increases the penalty for a crime after it was committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make it easier to convict someone. Similarly, Article 1, Section 10, provides that no state shall pass an ex post facto law. The Constitution protects individuals by denying to the Congress or state legislatures the power to punish people by passing ex post facto laws.
By Mutnodjmet on Mar 19, 2009
It is also unconstitutional to legislate against targeted groupings. This “law” (proposed still) is a gross miscarriage of justice and American Freedom.
How about prosecution (RICO?) against Barney the effeminate dinosaur and Doddering Chris for their FORCING banks into unsafe lending practices?
In answer to the post, they don’t care, they know, they just don’t care in their arrogance and eagerness to rule us by collectivist prinicples
By Nik on Mar 20, 2009
We’ll have to disagree on this one, Mut. Mark Levan is wrong – Art. 1, Sec. 8 does not specify criminal law – it says ‘No ex post facto law.’ That this is aimed at income is irrelevant; the intent is to punish; punishment is meted out to the guilty, in civilized countries, after they are tried and convicted, having had due process of law. This situation is nothing like that. Our laws also are to be, per the Constitution, “To promote the general welfare,” that is, not to single our a particular individual or group, as this bit of pretended legislation does.
By ssgconway on Mar 20, 2009
I agree with the constitutional reference. I wish that more than a small handful of congress-critters were concerned with legislating in accordance with their enumerated powers. That is sorely lacking on BOTH sides of the aisle.
The best term I’ve heard for this targeted and arbitrary grandstanding false outrage is “retroactive”. These contracts that the sophists are fuming over were; 1. written years before the financial mess and 2. were then APPROVED by the very politicrats feigning righteous indignation about it.
Where is the concern for the BILLIONS in unconstitutional “bailouts”. Where is the “outrage” over the squandering of our childrens’ futures?
By Nik on Mar 20, 2009