Taxing The AIG Bonuses

21 Responses to “Taxing The AIG Bonuses”

1. JB writes
   March 19th, 2009 3:30 pm

   Good for Marsha, this bill is clearly an unconstitutional bill of attainder. This is money that AIG was contractually obligated to pay, and now the U.S. Congress has singled out these individuals for punishment simply for receiving bonuses. The Wheter the bonuses were deserved is irrelevant (for the record they weren’t). This action is unprecedented. I’m really disappointed in Wamp, Roe and Duncan. I expected as much from the others.

2. Sean Braisted writes
   March 19th, 2009 4:28 pm

   Funny, I don’t remember the Republicans being all to worried about constitutionality when it came to the case of one woman in Florida who was being taken off of life support as per her wishes as relayed to her Husband.

3. Jon writes
   March 19th, 2009 4:56 pm

   Just because someone said so in a talking point doesn’t make it so

4. Bob K writes
   March 19th, 2009 5:26 pm

   Tyranny is a child molester; it never looks like what you would expect it to look like. It is how it gains its prey’s trust.

   http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/?p=2186

5. Bob K writes
   March 19th, 2009 5:37 pm

   Sean, while I didn’t support what Washington did regarding the Schiavo case, please point to the Constitutional clause that it violated.

6. equeener writes
   March 19th, 2009 6:16 pm

   BLACKBURN’S TRUE COLORS HAVE SHOWN - WHAT DOES
   SHE KNOW ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - GIVE ME
   A BREAK - JUST MORE POSTURING. ” A LITTLE
   LEARNING IS A DANGEROUS THING” I WOULD SAY
   OXFORD EDUCATED JIM COOPER WOULD KNOW MORE
   ON THE SUBJECT.

   THREE DIFFERENT JUDGES, ONE OR MORE APPOINTED
   BY BUSH, AGREED THE COSTITUTION HAD NOT BEEN
   VIOLATED BY TAKING SCHIAVO OFF CHILD SUPPORT.

7. GoldnI writes
   March 19th, 2009 6:58 pm

   while I didn’t support what Washington did regarding the Schiavo case, please point to the Constitutional clause that it violated.

   Article III, Section 2. Congress was attempting to direct the federal courts on how to proceed on one issue. It was a blatant violation of the Separation of Powers.

8. GoldnI writes
   March 19th, 2009 7:15 pm

   Also, the original bill passed by the Florida legislature giving Jeb Bush the authority to intervene was unconstitutional as it was retroactive.

9. Bob K writes
   March 19th, 2009 7:34 pm

   Goldie,
   Which part of Art III, Section 2? This part perhaps?

   In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

   Try again.

   As for the Florida Legislature, I said Washington, not Florida. Can’t vouch for what is Constitutional under the Florida Constitution.

10. GoldnI writes
    March 19th, 2009 8:38 pm

    Actually Bob, you try again. If the statute had only said that the federal courts had jurisdiction, then it would not have been unconstitutional under Section 2, which, as you noted, gave Congress the power to allocate and regulate jurisdiction among the appellate courts.

    However, that’s not what the law did. It flat out told the court to review it “de novo” (to not rely on precedent) and to not consider any claims previously raised in the proceedings. That’s not a jurisdictional issue, that’s Congress telling a court how to go about ruling on a certain issue. The Constitution only allows Congress to determine jurisdiction, not to dictate the standard of review. Determining the standard of review has always been within the purview of the courts. It was, in fact, a violation of the separation of powers.

11. Bob K writes
    March 19th, 2009 8:51 pm

    Again, you try again: “Both as to law and fact.”

    The Constitution gives great latitude to the Legislature to dictate the Court’s bounds to the Court. Congress decides the Court’s number, its composition and structure, (with a few specific exceptions) what cases it may take and which it might not, and even what it may consider when rendering judgment. The Court was by the Framers’ design the weakest of the three branches.

    However, what the Constitution expressly does prohibits to the Legislature is to be the Court. That is what Congress did today and what it did not do in Schiavo.

    Now if you want to discuss a patently unconstitutional law implemented during the period 2001 to 2006, since you apparently want to make the “Republicans did it too” argument, let’s discuss McCain-Feingold, an absolutely unconscionable piece of anti-First Amendment trash, unfortunately upheld by the same Supreme Court which also upheld Kelo.

    Throw the lot of ‘em out if you ask me.

12. GoldnI writes
    March 19th, 2009 9:29 pm

    Congress decides the Court’s number, its composition and structure, (with a few specific exceptions) what cases it may take and which it might not

    Yes, these are jurisdictional issues, as proscribed under Section 2. Federal courts can only take federal issues, and the Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in very limited circumstances.

    But nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can dictate to the courts how they should go about making their decisions. The Supreme Court held back in 1871 (well before any of the justices you don’t like were on the court) in U.S. v. Klein that while Congress can place certain restrictions on the workings of the courts, for Congress to proscribe a rule of decision upon the courts (in this particular case, to pass a law stating that the courts couldn’t consider the legal effect of Presidential pardons issued to former Confederate fighters) went against the separation of powers.

13. Bob K writes
    March 19th, 2009 9:34 pm

    What was the rule of decision proscribed by Congress in Shiavo?

14. Bob K writes
    March 19th, 2009 9:54 pm

    Here’s the Act of Congress to which you object:

    Sec. 1: United STates District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, deermine, and render jedgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain life.

    Sec. 2: Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

    To this point I presume you have no objection to the Constitutionality of the law as it is entirely jurisdictional.

    Here is where I think your objection is:

    In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

    Here is why you are wrong. This is not an example of Congress telling the Court how to rule, but an example of Congress telling the Court that it cannot decline to accept the case. Again, this is jurisdictional, not decisional. Congress mandated that a lower Federal Court must take the case, which is within Congressional prerogative. What would not have been within their prerogative would have been if they had mandated that the US Supreme Court first take the case since this was not the type of case for which the Supremes have original jurisdiction.

15. GoldnI writes
    March 19th, 2009 9:55 pm

    That the court had to consider the case “de novo,” treating it as an entirely new issue without considering any decisions the lower courts had made or any claims previously brought up, nor could they defer to state court decisions.

    If you read the 11th Circuit’s actual decision, they don’t deny that Congress had the right to confer jurisdiction upon the court. What made the law unconstitutional were the de novo requirements.

16. GoldnI writes
    March 19th, 2009 9:58 pm

    But you misunderstand the meaning of “de novo”. Congress can’t say that a court should review this case or that de novo, nor can they say that the courts can’t at least consider what the lower courts have held.

17. Bob K writes
    March 19th, 2009 10:09 pm

    Is not when a case is to be considered de novo determined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

18. GoldnI writes
    March 19th, 2009 10:27 pm

    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 sets out the procedure by which the court can order a new trial, which is also known as a “trial de novo”. That’s not the issue here.

19. Bob K writes
    March 19th, 2009 10:40 pm

    Really? I think that is what is at issue here. FRCP are the rules that the federal courts have made for themselves. They proscribe when an appellate court (usually, though not always) can order a de novo trial. Those rules are drafted by the rulemaking body of the federal judicary under the authority granted it in the Rules Enabling Act, an act of Congress. Congress makes the rules, and what Congress giveth it can taketh away.

    You really should have argued McCain-Feingold instead of Schiavo as an unconstitutional act of congress . . .

    Leaving that aside, you still have said nothing in defense of the merits of the bill passed by the House today, which is the original issue you have attempted to sidestep–most unsuccessfully, I might add.

20. GoldnI writes
    March 19th, 2009 11:15 pm

    I’m not arguing about the bill today. Others upthread did that. I think it was a good idea politically but it’ll probably get shot down in a lawsuit.

    For the same reason “Terri’s Law” was.

    (And no, this still has nothing to do with Rule 59. Congress granted the rule-making authority, but that rule determined that it’s the courts who determine when a de novo trial can be granted. So Congress should have repealed that rule first if they wanted this to pass muster).

21. Glen Dean writes
    March 20th, 2009 4:25 am

    Sean’s answer to everything for the next four years, is to say that the Republicans did it too. No there is no moral defense, just a point to the past. Whatever works for him, I guess.