• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Law Professor Who Advised Obama Says House AIG Bill May Be Unconstitutional

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Lawrence Tribe, who was Barack Obama's constitutional adviser during his campain, has just come out with something very interesting about Obama's plan to levy a 90% tax on corporate bonuses, and his argument makes a lot of sense. He says that it could very well be unconstitutional. He rationalizes this thought by pointing out that it would amount to a bill of attainder, which the Constitution outlaws.

It makes enough sense to me that, although I am really pissed about screwups getting those bonuses, I have to agree that Obama does not have the legal right to tax them, as it, according to Tribe, legislates punishment for an identifiable class. Obama may be in a lot of political hot water, should he decide to continue to push this provision.

What does everyone else think?

Article is here.
 
Obama has a degree in law, has lectured about constitutional law, and now a former advisor on the said matter is saying it's unconstitutional.

Obviously Obama is more concerned with forcing his own agenda on us, than respecting the constitution.
 
if Obama doesn't know he is pushing unconstitutional legislation
what chance did dubya have of detecting it? :)
 
The thing that scares me about this bonus is not whether it is unconstitutional or not, but if the government can tax 90% on the bonus of people making over 250k, then who else can they tax at...90%?

That being said, I do think that since THIS ENTIRE MESS has been handled rather...poorly? If the executives of AIG indeed did know about this entire mess before hand, than shouldn't there be a trial in the first place? I think a court trial could very well, if not solve our problems, share a LOT of light on it.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
The thing that scares me about this bonus is not whether it is unconstitutional or not, but if the government can tax 90% on the bonus of people making over 250k, then who else can they tax at...90%?

That being said, I do think that since THIS ENTIRE MESS has been handled rather...poorly? If the executives of AIG indeed did know about this entire mess before hand, than shouldn't there be a trial in the first place? I think a court trial could very well, if not solve our problems, share a LOT of light on it.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken Geithner knew about this at least a month ago.

Says a lot about the governments outrage. :roll:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If I'm not mistaken Geithner knew about this at least a month ago.

Says a lot about the governments outrage. :roll:
Click to expand...
All I know is, someone did something wrong, it's just a matter of whom. I think a little investigation and a trial should clear most everything.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
All I know is, someone did something wrong, it's just a matter of whom. I think a little investigation and a trial should clear most everything.
Click to expand...

Posted a story from the wall street journal. Some of Geithner's aids where working in and around AIG as well as he himself.
 
danarhea said:
Lawrence Tribe, who was Barack Obama's constitutional adviser during his campain, has just come out with something very interesting about Obama's plan to levy a 90% tax on corporate bonuses, and his argument makes a lot of sense. He says that it could very well be unconstitutional. He rationalizes this thought by pointing out that it would amount to a bill of attainder, which the Constitution outlaws.

It makes enough sense to me that, although I am really pissed about screwups getting those bonuses, I have to agree that Obama does not have the legal right to tax them, as it, according to Tribe, legislates punishment for an identifiable class. Obama may be in a lot of political hot water, should he decide to continue to push this provision.

What does everyone else think?

Article is here.
Click to expand...


I think it was Congress that passed the bill and I hope that Obama has the sense to veto it even though a veto will negatively effect his PR.
 
The problem is that most of the bonuses are guaranteed to executives by pre-existing contracts, and they can't violate them by simply not paying out the bonuses in accordance with the stimulus package. The 90% taxation is a way to compensate for that, so that the tax dollars are reabsorbed after the contract is honoured. It's sneaky, I admit, but I think it's fair play in light of the contracts.
 
I have been saying its Unconstitutional since it was first suggested.


The US Constitution Article I said:
Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

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

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Click to expand...
 
danarhea said:
Lawrence Tribe, who was Barack Obama's constitutional adviser during his campain, has just come out with something very interesting about Obama's plan to levy a 90% tax on corporate bonuses, and his argument makes a lot of sense. He says that it could very well be unconstitutional. He rationalizes this thought by pointing out that it would amount to a bill of attainder, which the Constitution outlaws.

It makes enough sense to me that, although I am really pissed about screwups getting those bonuses, I have to agree that Obama does not have the legal right to tax them, as it, according to Tribe, legislates punishment for an identifiable class. Obama may be in a lot of political hot water, should he decide to continue to push this provision.

What does everyone else think?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Not a typical Tribe stance let's say.

I hope at least one AIG bonus receiver takes this to court.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom