Tribe:
I do think Congress (and the Executive Branch) could avoid serious Bill of Attainder problems by passing a sufficiently broad law … rather than targeting a closed class of named executives even though the prohibition against Bills of Attainder, unlike that against Ex Post Facto laws, potentially reaches civil as well as criminal penalties.
Full Story »
Interesting analysis about a recent proposal to tax AIG bonus-recipients -- with a focus on how that would affect their constitutional rights. The author turns to a legal expert for commentary on key constitutional laws related to this topic: Harvard’s Laurence Tribe. While little additional context and sourcing is provided, this is an informative blog post about a timely issue.
A very relevant and timely article regarding the AIG Bailout Bonus Tax and How it is viewed legally by Lawrence Tribe at Harvard. Thoughfully approaching each question and it's relevance. A creative write up, apparenlty Article 1 of the Constitution can be put aside this way according to Tribe. He may be wrong...has been before..
Interestingly, the Congress cannot Target AIG bonuses...they will simply tax ALL Bonuses for any company getting 5 BL or more in Fed help bonuses. A clever way of getting around the intent of the law..Article 1 does not apply according to him.
The Wall Street Journal seems to be trying to see if they can argue successfully for the bonuses of the rich executives at AIG. The legal interpretations are interesting, but are one lawyer's view. Get 10 lawyers in a room and you will get 11 views.
Was the WSJ worrying about retroactivity when the telecoms were seeking legislation for retroactive immunity for wiretapping crimes?
Retrieving Comments
